LILONGWE-(MaraviPost)-The Human Rights Consultative Committee (HRCC) has come out strongly in defence of Malawi’s judiciary, warning that growing claims portraying presidential pardons as proof of innocence are not only misleading but pose a serious threat to public confidence in the rule of law.
According to HRCC Board Chairperson Robert Mkwezalamba, a presidential pardon granted under Section 89 (2) of the Constitution of the Republic of Malawi is an executive act of clemency exercised on humanitarian or public interest grounds.
The statement comes in response to recent remarks by convicted businessperson Thompson Mpinganjira, who suggested that his presidential pardon signified innocence and invalidated his conviction.
HRCC has firmly rejected this interpretation, stressing that such assertions undermine public confidence in the rule of law.
It does not, he emphasized, constitute a judicial determination of innocence nor nullify a conviction.
“Any claim that a pardon proves innocence is legally incorrect and represents a misinterpretation of constitutional powers,” the statement reads.
“The authority to determine guilt or innocence lies solely with the courts, as provided under the doctrine of separation of powers.”
HRCC further noted that Mpinganjira was duly tried and convicted by a competent court in accordance with Section 42 of the Constitution, which guarantees the right to a fair trial.
The organization underscored that the conviction remains valid unless overturned through established legal processes such as an appeal or judicial review.
The committee expressed concern that public statements challenging the legitimacy of court rulings particularly by influential individuals risk eroding trust in both the judiciary and constitutional institutions.
It described such remarks as an attack on the administration of justice and a threat to the principles of accountability and legal order.
“Malawi is founded on the rule of law and constitutionalism,” HRCC stated.
“The same legal framework that ensures fair trial rights also provides avenues such as appeals and bail pending appeal. These mechanisms must be respected.”
While acknowledging the President’s constitutional prerogative to grant pardons, HRCC cautioned against politicizing or misrepresenting such powers.
It warned that continued mischaracterization of pardons could bring both the Office of the President and the judiciary into disrepute.
The organization also suggested that persistent statements undermining judicial outcomes could prompt calls for reconsideration of the pardon itself, though it did not indicate any formal action in that regard.
HRCC concluded by urging restraint and responsibility in public discourse, emphasizing that a pardon relieves punishment but does not erase a finding of guilt.
“We must not allow status or wealth to overshadow the fundamental laws that govern our nation,” the statement said.
“Respect for judicial processes and constitutional order is essential to maintaining public trust and national integrity.”