By Jones Gadama
The High Court has blocked government’s plan to relocate the Malawi Electoral Commission from Lilongwe to Blantyre, ruling that the move cannot proceed until the main case is heard. On the surface, this is a legal dispute about executive powers and institutional independence.
But scratch the surface and the hard truth stares us in the face: the Malawi Congress Party is a lead applicant in a case to stop MEC from leaving Lilongwe, yet it was the MCP-led administration under Dr. Lazarus Chakwera that completed MEC’s relocation from Blantyre to Lilongwe.
So why is MCP now acting as MEC’s chief defender against an executive order? That question demands uncomfortable answers.
The hard truth is that MEC was physically headquartered in Blantyre for years, under the city’s commercial buzz and closer to the population in the Southern Region.
During the MCP administration from 2020 to 2024, government finalized and implemented the move of MEC’s main offices, archives, servers, and senior staff to Lilongwe.
The justification then was administrative efficiency, security of records, and proximity to other key state institutions in the capital. MCP ministers defended that move in Parliament. MCP surrogates argued it reduced costs and improved coordination.
No one from MCP ran to court then. The relocation happened, and MCP celebrated it as part of modernizing the electoral body.
Fast forward to 2025, and the same party is now telling the court that relocating MEC will cause “serious constitutional and administrative implications.” What changed, except the party in State House?
The hard truth is that perception matters in elections, and MCP knows it. Before the 2025 tripartite elections, MEC Chairperson Justice Anabel Mtalimanja faced public scrutiny over her background. Social media debates were relentless: she is the daughter of the late John Zenus Ungapake Tembo, former MCP president and one of the party’s most loyal sons who never switched allegiance.
For many Malawians, that lineage created a reasonable apprehension of bias. Justice Mtalimanja herself addressed it publicly, pledging professionalism and vowing to deliver free, fair, and credible elections regardless of her roots.
She ran the 2025 polls, and MCP accepted the results. But the perception did not die. If anything, it cemented in the public mind that MEC’s leadership had deep historical ties to MCP.
So when government now issues an Executive Order to move MEC back to Blantyre, and MCP immediately joins three citizens to rush to court for an injunction, the optics are terrible. The hard truth is that MCP is not a neutral bystander. It is a political party with a direct interest in how, where, and by whom elections are administered.
By becoming a co-applicant, MCP has fused its political brand with MEC’s physical location. That creates the impression, whether true or not, that MCP believes MEC is safer, more manageable, or more favorable to its interests in Lilongwe than in Blantyre.
If that impression is false, MCP must explain why it did not object when it moved MEC to Lilongwe, but now objects fiercely when government moves it back.
Is it wrong to speculate that MEC is being influenced by MCP? The hard truth is that speculation is not evidence, and the law presumes institutions act professionally until proven otherwise. Justice Mtalimanja has no record of proven misconduct. MEC’s commissioners are appointed through constitutional processes.
The commission’s work is audited, observed by local and international monitors, and subject to court challenges. To claim direct influence without proof would be reckless. But the hard truth is also that independence is not just about actual conduct; it is about appearance. Section 75 of the Constitution demands that MEC be independent and impartial.
When the party that appointed the current MEC leadership is the same party running to court to freeze MEC’s location, that appearance of independence takes a hit. Malawians who do not follow legal arguments will simply conclude: “MCP wants MEC in Lilongwe because it benefits MCP.” That conclusion may be unfair, but MCP invited it by joining the case.
The hard truth is that both sides are playing politics with institutions. Government says relocation is about decentralization, decongesting Lilongwe, and taking public offices to Blantyre as the commercial capital. That is a legitimate policy argument. But government must also accept that timing and process matter.
Issuing an Executive Order without broad consultation makes any relocation look like a political maneuver, especially when the institution involved is the referee of elections. MCP, on the other hand, says it is defending constitutionalism and MEC’s independence.
That is also a legitimate legal argument. But MCP must answer why constitutionalism did not matter when it moved MEC from Blantyre to Lilongwe. You cannot be the architect of a house and later sue the next owner for renovating it.
The hard truth is that Malawians lose when institutions become party footballs. MEC’s credibility depends on trust from all parties, not just one. If MCP truly believes relocation threatens independence, it should make that case without becoming a litigant.
Civil society, professional bodies, and ordinary citizens can carry that flag. When MCP joins the lawsuit, it hands its opponents a weapon: “You only care about MEC’s independence when you think it helps you.” That weapon will be used in 2029 campaigns, and it will stick unless MCP explains itself clearly.
So what should happen now? The hard truth is that the court must decide the law, but politicians must decide the tone. Government must show that relocation is not a trap to weaken MEC, but a genuine plan for balanced development with safeguards for MEC’s autonomy, budget, and security. MCP must explain its change of heart with facts, not emotions.
Why was Lilongwe good for MEC from 2020 to 2024 but suddenly dangerous in 2025? What new constitutional risk emerged? If the answer is “nothing, we just want to stop government,” then Malawians will see this case for what it is: pure power play.
In the end, MEC belongs to Malawi, not to MCP, not to government, not to Blantyre or Lilongwe.
The hard truth is that the more political parties fight over where MEC sits, the less Malawians trust where MEC stands. And a mistrusted electoral commission is a threat to democracy itself.
MCP should reflect deeply on whether joining this case protects institutions or protects interests. Because right now, the line between the two looks dangerously thin.
Feedback:+265992082424
Email: jonesgadama@gmail.com
Leave a Reply