Lead Judge Potani in Malawi Presidential Case

By LordDenning QB

This is narrative in which one of our contributors LordDenning has observed during the final court submission of parties involved in the ongoing presidential case ready to commence on December 18, 2020.

LordDenning says there is biases in which the court has handled the submission favouring Malawi Electoral Commission (MEC) and President Peter Mutharika.

Here is his take:

POINT OF ORDER: BIAS IN THE CHAMBER


In this post:
UTM = SKC
MCP = LMC
DPP = APM


According to sequence of events that was outlined, by the Court, at the conclusion of the hearing of witnesses on 6th December, the following was to happen:

1). By 10th December 2019: Petitioners to serve the Respondents with final written submission.

2). By 14th December 2019: Respondents to reply to the Petitioners final written submissions.

3). Thereafter, the Respondents were to respond to the replies of the Respondents within a period of less than 36 hours.

The following has happened:

1). By 10th December 2019: MCP submits the final written submissions within schedule. UTM submits the written final submissions with a slight delay of 1 hour (instead of 14:30, they submitted by 15:30). Due to the 1 hour delay, UTM gets fined MK300,000. The same has been duly paid (today – Monday, 16th December 2019) to each of the Respondents as ordered by the Court. Due to the same delay, the Court gives the Respondents an extension of 1 full Day – thus enabling them to give their reply by Sunday15th December at 14:30 Hrs.

2) On Sunday (15th December 2019) MEC and DPP (the Respondents) submit their replies with an hour delay. Instead of submitting by 14:30 Hrs., they make their submissions by 15:30 Hrs. UTM points out to the Court that the Respondents have serviced them with a delay and the Court treats the complaint with silence. The Court never fined DPP and MEC and never gives an extension of time for service for UTM and MCP’s responses to the replies.

3). Today, Monday (16th December 2019) – in less than 24 hours – the UTM submitted its response to the DPP and MEC replies. Their complaint about DPP and MEC delays remain unresolved as the Court remains silent on the same.

RECAP OF OTHER FACTS

DPP and MEC delayed with an hour while responding to 74 pages of UTM Petition and 172 pages of MCP Petition.

UTM and MCP given 36 Hours (3 Days) to responds the (174 + 18) pages of the MEC Reply and the 332 pages of the DPP Reply to which UTM does so within 24 Hours (a Day).

MY COMMENT

The Court has, in this case, treated APM and MEC with kid groves.

…………….Views expressed in this article are not necessarily the views of the Publisher or the Editor of Maravi Post.

NBS Bank Your Caring Bank