By Jones Gadama
Malawi is bleeding justice in real time and the wound is the judiciary.
Last week a 66-year-old man Mavuto Saulos of Bonomali village, traditional Authority Namkumba in Mangochi- Monkey-bay caught a 28-year-old boy stealing sweet potatoes.
Anger took over. He grabbed a panga and cut off the boy’s fingers. A video of the bloodied boy went viral.
The hard truth is that police acted within 24 hours, arrested the old man, and by yesterday he was convicted and sentenced to five years imprisonment with hard labour.
The victim got a suspended sentence. One week, arrest to conviction. Thumbs up, Malawians said justice prevailed. But the hard truth is that justice only prevailed because the old man was ignorant.
He didn’t know he could run to the High Court, file for judicial review, and get an interim injunction to freeze his arrest. His ignorance delivered speed. His ignorance delivered consequence.
Contrast that with what happens when politics and pangas meet. The hard truth is that in June 2025, CDEDI Executive Director Sylvester Namiwa was attacked at Lilongwe Community Centre Ground by over 200 people wielding machetes during a peaceful protest. He sustained more than fifteen serious injuries. Civil servants were also hacked. Videos of the violence went viral. Police arrested suspects. Then the suspects ran to court.
The hard truth is that the High Court granted an injunction barring police from re-arresting 11 suspects linked to political violence, including Alfred Dala Kadula, Joseph Tilibe Gideon, Lameck Manduwa Mkasa, Lester Hanleck Aaron Kanjunga and Mavuto Njuchi, the same names later charged with grievous harm over the Namiwa attack. The court order said “if there are any additional criminal charges, let them be instituted by way of summons without any further arrests”.
Months later, those suspects walk freely. No trial date, no closure, no justice for Namiwa. The panga swung, blood was shed, video went viral, and the courts gave protection instead of punishment.
The hard truth is that this is not an isolated case. Prince Kapondamgaga, former State Residence Chief of Staff, recently obtained a court order restraining police from arresting him.
Police ignored it and detained him anyway, but the very fact that a court would issue such an order before arrest shows the new normal: injunction first, questions later.
The hard truth is that the same courts also stopped police from searching former President Lazarus Chakwera’s premises to look for German shepherd dogs.
Not arrest. Just search. The court said no. That prevention gave ample time to move anything.
By the time a judge says “go search”, the dogs, the evidence, the truth will be somewhere in Mozambique.
Surely, how does a court of justice prevent a mere search and call it judicial independence?
This column has established that the courts are selective.
The hard truth is that during the MCP era in government, senior DPP members while in opposition were arrested, detained, and denied interim injunctions.
They faced the full force of the law immediately.
Now, with DPP in government, political suspects linked to the former mcp regime get injunctions like clockwork.
The same panga, the same viral video, the same grievous harm – but different treatment. One suspect gets five years in seven days.
The other gets freedom papers signed by a judge.
That is why this column equates the current Malawi judiciary to an MCP offshoot. It is not about law anymore. It is about loyalty.
The hard truth is that the judiciary is to blame for denying justice by delaying it.
“Justice delayed is justice denied” is not a slogan, it is a constitutional principle.
Yet injunctions meant to prevent abuse are now being used to prevent accountability. The courts argue they are protecting rights.
But the hard truth is that ignorance of the law is no defence, and ignorance of one’s rights is no excuse for the citizen.
Why then is ignorance of consequences now a shield for the politically connected?
A 66-year-old farmer without a lawyer pays with five years.
A suspect with a Senior Counsel pays with a court order and walks free.
The hard truth is that Malawi’s retirement age for judges at 65 is wire and tire.
It is keeping a generation that grew up in analog courts in charge of digital-age crimes.
Viral videos, social media evidence, cyber intimidation – these require new blood that is digitalized and charged.
This column calls for a complete overhaul. Retirement age must be 60. Let the new generation take the helm.
The current crop has shown a natural hatred against the DPP.
Malawians still remember how the same judiciary oppressed President Peter Mutharika when he was in opposition by ordering him and former Chief Secretary Lloyd Muhara to pay MK69.5 million from personal pockets for asking Chief Justice Andrew Nyirenda to proceed on leave pending retirement. The decision made while he was president.
Justice Charles Mkandawire said they “acted outside their Constitutional mandate”.
The Supreme Court later overturned it, citing immunity, but the damage was done. The message was clear: touch the judiciary and pay from your pocket.
The hard truth is that the court is a temple of justice, not a temple of delay. Granting injunctions to stop police from arresting suspects is turning the temple into a safe house.
Police have a constitutional duty to investigate crime under Section 153 of the Constitution. When courts routinely freeze that duty for political suspects, they are not safeguarding rights. They are sabotaging justice.
The hard truth is that no injunction should stop police from arresting suspects where there is prima facie evidence, especially when videos show blood on the ground. Summons can follow arrest. Bail can follow charge. But arrest must happen.
Malawi cannot build a nation where a poor old man with a panga gets five years in seven days while politically connected suspects with pangas get injunctions for seven months. That is not rule of law. That is rule of lawyers.
The hard truth is that until courts stop willy-nilly granting injunctions that paralyze police, Malawians will lose faith.
And a judiciary without public trust is just a building with robes inside.
The time for polite clapping is over. The judiciary must go back to its core: deliver justice without fear, without favour, and without delay. Anything less is betrayal.
Feedback:+265992082424
Email: jonesgadama@gmail.com
Leave a Reply