A stumbling block to Malawi's social, political and economic prosperity.
By: Peter Qeko Jere
On the 15th of June 2007, the Malawi’s Supreme Court granted powers to the Speaker of the national assembly to declare vacant seats of MPs who defected from their parties. In this ruling, Chief Justice Unyolo pointed out that the Speaker of the national assembly could use a controversial provision to expel any MP who changed party affiliation. The learned Judge also said that the Court’s position is that section 65 is consistent with other provision of the constitution and is valid (am not sure about this!).
Malawians have reacted differently on this issue. Some still maintain that this constitutional provision need to be revisited and not used this time while some argue that the speaker need to use it during the budget sitting of parliament. UDF and MCP are so much happy with the ruling. One of them said, “I am failing to explain how excited we are in the UDF”. Some have argued that this s that this is democracy at its best and that truth has finally prevailed. In this regard, they expect the Speaker of the National Assembly to declare vacant seats of MPs that they think have crossed the floor. Some continues to argue that this will at the end lead to the collapse of Bingu Wamthalika’s government. A lot of things are happening as of now and we expect even more in the near future. Just yesterday (28/6/07) the High court granted an injunction stopping Speaker of the national assembly from using this section in the house as deliberate on the budge.
However, there are few questions that Malawians could have in mind regarding this section 65 and our current political situation. Firstly is this the right time for MPs to discuss issues of section 65? What is important for Malawians, section 65 or the budget? Of what benefit is this section 65 to the poor in the villages? Will our people in the villages directly benefit with this section 65?
In response to this, our MPs need to know that section 65 is not as important as the national budget. Malawians need the budget because this is the very life of the people. Malawians as of now need the budget and not section 65 because there is nothing in this section that Malawians in the villages could benefit from. In the budget there is food, road, bridges, schools and peoples salaries (including MPs salaries). In this regard, it is important that MPs in parliament should discuss budget which is the very life of the people who voted them into office. So it is uncomprehendable when we hear some politicians saying that to them section 65 is important than the budget. This is in the understanding that they want to discuss this section first before the budget. Such politicians who want section 65 more than the budget need to know that this mentality will create their own political gallows because soon or later the electorate will judge their actions.
As to whether this section will lead to the down fall of Bingu’s government, is something that some of us feels will not happen. This is because Malawi uses a presidential system where the president and his vice are elected separately.
Having said this, there is one aspect of this section that is worrisome to some of us. This aspect creates parliamentary dictatorship and anarchy. This is where the Supreme Court said that NEITHER THE HIGH COURT NOR THE SUPREME COURT HAS POWER TO DECLARE AS INVALID OR INVALIDATE A CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISION. After reading through this judgment, I have come to realize that something is terribly wrong in our legal system is this is the position of the court in Malawi. Now if the courts say that they don’t have the power to intervene in such situations then who is the world is empowered to handle this? Also then what is the reason of having courts if they don’t have power to do something on what parliament implements? If this is the courts position then why are the courts there in the first place in a democratic Malawi?
If the Malawi court has no power to do something on what parliament implements then someday Malawians will be in for a rough ride when we shall have a party with majority MPs in the house. What am saying is that in such situation, majority MPs will be able to decide even to increase their salary to one Million kwacha or more and nobody will argue about it. Even this party in majority will be able to even the constitution in anyway they shall want and no one will say a thing about it become the courts shall be of no help. So in a way, section 65 ruling has reduced the authority of the courts in Malawi and has made Parliament supreme and powerful. This situation has made parliament untouchable because their decisions will be final and unchangeable a situation which is worrisome.
Now if Parliament is let like this is a democratic Malawi then shall be there to check them? To me the Supreme Court is best place to check all what parliament produces and see to it that our constitution is protected. Supreme Court is best placed to protect our constitution from abuse by our MPs in a situation where they are in majority. As things are now, it is really sad that our constitution has no one to protect it from any abuse. With this therefore, while some are happy with this section, Malawians should be sad about the whole situation because from this time onward, ANY PARTY IN MAJORITY IN PARLIAMENT WILL BE ABLE TO CHANGE THE CONSTITUTIN AND NO ONE WILL QUESTION IT.
In addition, in today’s Paper (29/7/07) (both nation and daily times), the Catholic Church has raised its voice asking MPs to concentrate on the budget and not section 65. Some politicians sadly enough in all these papers argue that the church should stay away from this whole issue and concentrate on preaching the gospel. To begin with, Malawian politicians need to know that Church and State will never be separated in as far as Malawi’s history is concern. You don’t separate these two because the church represents the voice of the voiceless poor in the villages. You can read more on Church and State in my other articles in my blog: www.zithandozami-qeko.blogspot.com
By: Peter Qeko Jere
On the 15th of June 2007, the Malawi’s Supreme Court granted powers to the Speaker of the national assembly to declare vacant seats of MPs who defected from their parties. In this ruling, Chief Justice Unyolo pointed out that the Speaker of the national assembly could use a controversial provision to expel any MP who changed party affiliation. The learned Judge also said that the Court’s position is that section 65 is consistent with other provision of the constitution and is valid (am not sure about this!).
Malawians have reacted differently on this issue. Some still maintain that this constitutional provision need to be revisited and not used this time while some argue that the speaker need to use it during the budget sitting of parliament. UDF and MCP are so much happy with the ruling. One of them said, “I am failing to explain how excited we are in the UDF”. Some have argued that this s that this is democracy at its best and that truth has finally prevailed. In this regard, they expect the Speaker of the National Assembly to declare vacant seats of MPs that they think have crossed the floor. Some continues to argue that this will at the end lead to the collapse of Bingu Wamthalika’s government. A lot of things are happening as of now and we expect even more in the near future. Just yesterday (28/6/07) the High court granted an injunction stopping Speaker of the national assembly from using this section in the house as deliberate on the budge.
However, there are few questions that Malawians could have in mind regarding this section 65 and our current political situation. Firstly is this the right time for MPs to discuss issues of section 65? What is important for Malawians, section 65 or the budget? Of what benefit is this section 65 to the poor in the villages? Will our people in the villages directly benefit with this section 65?
In response to this, our MPs need to know that section 65 is not as important as the national budget. Malawians need the budget because this is the very life of the people. Malawians as of now need the budget and not section 65 because there is nothing in this section that Malawians in the villages could benefit from. In the budget there is food, road, bridges, schools and peoples salaries (including MPs salaries). In this regard, it is important that MPs in parliament should discuss budget which is the very life of the people who voted them into office. So it is uncomprehendable when we hear some politicians saying that to them section 65 is important than the budget. This is in the understanding that they want to discuss this section first before the budget. Such politicians who want section 65 more than the budget need to know that this mentality will create their own political gallows because soon or later the electorate will judge their actions.
As to whether this section will lead to the down fall of Bingu’s government, is something that some of us feels will not happen. This is because Malawi uses a presidential system where the president and his vice are elected separately.
Having said this, there is one aspect of this section that is worrisome to some of us. This aspect creates parliamentary dictatorship and anarchy. This is where the Supreme Court said that NEITHER THE HIGH COURT NOR THE SUPREME COURT HAS POWER TO DECLARE AS INVALID OR INVALIDATE A CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISION. After reading through this judgment, I have come to realize that something is terribly wrong in our legal system is this is the position of the court in Malawi. Now if the courts say that they don’t have the power to intervene in such situations then who is the world is empowered to handle this? Also then what is the reason of having courts if they don’t have power to do something on what parliament implements? If this is the courts position then why are the courts there in the first place in a democratic Malawi?
If the Malawi court has no power to do something on what parliament implements then someday Malawians will be in for a rough ride when we shall have a party with majority MPs in the house. What am saying is that in such situation, majority MPs will be able to decide even to increase their salary to one Million kwacha or more and nobody will argue about it. Even this party in majority will be able to even the constitution in anyway they shall want and no one will say a thing about it become the courts shall be of no help. So in a way, section 65 ruling has reduced the authority of the courts in Malawi and has made Parliament supreme and powerful. This situation has made parliament untouchable because their decisions will be final and unchangeable a situation which is worrisome.
Now if Parliament is let like this is a democratic Malawi then shall be there to check them? To me the Supreme Court is best place to check all what parliament produces and see to it that our constitution is protected. Supreme Court is best placed to protect our constitution from abuse by our MPs in a situation where they are in majority. As things are now, it is really sad that our constitution has no one to protect it from any abuse. With this therefore, while some are happy with this section, Malawians should be sad about the whole situation because from this time onward, ANY PARTY IN MAJORITY IN PARLIAMENT WILL BE ABLE TO CHANGE THE CONSTITUTIN AND NO ONE WILL QUESTION IT.
In addition, in today’s Paper (29/7/07) (both nation and daily times), the Catholic Church has raised its voice asking MPs to concentrate on the budget and not section 65. Some politicians sadly enough in all these papers argue that the church should stay away from this whole issue and concentrate on preaching the gospel. To begin with, Malawian politicians need to know that Church and State will never be separated in as far as Malawi’s history is concern. You don’t separate these two because the church represents the voice of the voiceless poor in the villages. You can read more on Church and State in my other articles in my blog: www.zithandozami-qeko.blogspot.com
