Supreme Court orders no new registered voters, no new candidates in Malawi re-run
The Malawi Supreme Court of Appeal has upheld the constitutional court determination that President Peter Mutharika was not duly elected in the May 21 2019 elections, has ordered that there be no new registered voters and no new presidential candidates.
The Supreme Court of Appeal has also reluctantly upheld the ConCourt ruling on 150 days to hold fresh election which is slated for July 2, saying the law provides 60 days for by-elections.
“We would have made a different determination. However, we will uphold the Court decision below,” said Justice Frank Kapanda reading a ruling by a panel of seven judges who made a “unanimous decision.”
The court said electoral disputes must be addressed “expeditiously.”
The Supreme Court of Appeal also ordered that the same voters roll used in 2019 elections should be used to vote in the new polls, meaning no new voter registration exercise.
“The law does not envisage new registration of voters in a by-election as they were not wronged in the first place,” ruled the courts.
The justices of appeal also ordered that there shall be no new entrants for the presidential race.
“There shall be no new candidates for fresh elections but only those who took part in the 21 May 2019,”
Malawi Electoral Commission (MEC) has since received nomination papers from Malawi Congress Party (MCP) president Lazarus Chakwera leading a nine-party Tonse Alliance, Mbakuwaku Movement for Development president Peter Kuwani and Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) candidate Peter Mutharika.
They all contested in the 2019 elections and there is no new entrant.
The torchbearers have also picked running mates who were also in the presidential race in the annulled vote.
The wording of the Supreme Court ‘s judge met says “candidates” that means all presidential candidates – who contested in 2019 – are at liberty to take party or withdraw from this rerun while at the same time they can also change their mind on choice of running mateor form electoral alliance at will.
Therefore, alliances of the parties and those that have since presented their nominations will not be affected at all.
Follow and Subscribe Nyasa TV :
pakati pa inu sankhani amuna 7 ol8mba mtima ndipo ife tizipemphera kuti nyumba yomangidwa pa ngodya ……..
zikutelotu nkhani zake
We are experiencing judicial dictatorship. How do they shut out others from voting. People had various reasons not to register, some were sick, others were not yet 18, others were away and the court want to deny them chance to vote leaders of their choice.
Amenewo sanabeledwe nawo
Gone are the days when we had Wise Judges.This is a cooked judgement.Now I know the reason why people who did not commit any crime are languishing in prisons. Judgement yochita kuwonekelatu kuti ndiyokondela.The Judges must be ashamed for inflicting injustice when they are custodians of Justice.Only God is a Good Judge.
Zimatero munthu akamamva pain
This court rulings is entirely foolish.kkkk If no new voters, no new candidates,so on, how 50+1, alliance? Politicised! Fool us,Malawian. hahaha
bwalo la njovu lilipo tingotelo
The court is so bias. Court is introducing new rules to allow for alliances. The same candidates with their parties were to run for fairness. That is what re run is. Same candidates same parties to ensure fairness
Jocker wafera mmanja kkkikkkkkk nyekhwe!!!!
No way I can vote for MCP. Chilima must pull out and stand on his own ticket if he wants my vote
You can go to he’ll with your useless vote!
Thus gr8 u must stay with it. The reason is that, now they all have 51, takn off ur 1, it will make the other party to win with 50+1, no need to vote again.
No new voters, no new candidates, but new running mates and new benchmark for winning. kikikiki, the Judges are rigging the elections. who voted for any Alliance or Mgwirizano in the past election?? Are we having fresh elections or a rerun of the same elections??? Our Judges have ordered for a crossbreed election, kikikiki.
Wakwiya ndi mfiti! Corona imuonetse nyekhwe!!
I hereby congratulate APM and JANE for appealing the concourt ruling and for not ascenting to parliament recommendationS because now the supreme court has refined the earlier ruling