Let us call it what it is: the Malawi Electoral Commission (MEC) is facing more than an administrative inconvenience.
It is confronting serious questions about financial discipline, institutional management, contractual obligations and accountability.
At the centre of the controversy is an institution that insists on its constitutional independence but must also explain its handling of public resources and financial commitments.
A Daily Times report published on November 3, 2026, under the headline “MEC Lives in ‘Extra’ Time”, exposed the latest chapter in the commission’s standoff with government over relocation and reported rental arrears at Chisankho House.
The commission’s seven-day deadline to settle the outstanding rent had reportedly expired, yet MEC continued operating from the premises.
First: The relocation battle — When an administrative directive becomes an institutional war
President Peter Mutharika’s Executive Order No. 1 of 2025, issued on October 10, 2025, directed MEC to relocate its headquarters from Lilongwe to Blantyre within three months. The directive also affected other public institutions, including MACRA and the Malawi Housing Corporation, which were expected to move to Blantyre, while the Malawi Prisons Service was directed to relocate to Zomba.
MEC’s headquarters had moved from Blantyre to Lilongwe in June 2023 after a process that reportedly lasted seven years, with the relocation expected to reduce the commission’s operating costs by approximately 30 per cent.
The Office of the President and Cabinet formally communicated the relocation directive to MEC on December 9, 2025. Two days later, the commission resolved not to comply, raising constitutional and legal questions about the extent of executive authority over an independent electoral body.
MEC relied on Section 76(4) of the Constitution and Section 6(1) of the Electoral Commission Act to defend its institutional independence. It subsequently filed for judicial review on January 27, 2026, while Attorney General Frank Mbeta reportedly relied on Section 89(5) in defending the government’s position.
On February 27, 2026, the High Court dismissed MEC’s initial judicial review application on procedural and time-limit grounds, rather than determining the substantive constitutional questions surrounding the relocation directive.
On June 5, 2026, the High Court allowed the Malawi Congress Party and three legislators to pursue a judicial and constitutional review and granted an injunction restraining the relocation. On August 20, 2026, the court dismissed the government’s application to discharge the stay, prompting the Attorney General to appeal.
The substantive legal questions remain unresolved. However, the dispute has exposed a troubling institutional confrontation that requires restraint, legal clarity and responsible leadership from all parties.
Second: K274.8 million in rent arrears — Who is accountable at Chisankho House?
A Nation report published on November 2, 2026, indicated that Capital Development Limited had issued a statutory notice over outstanding rent amounting to K274,782,936 at Chisankho House.
The reported arrears covered six months beginning May 1, 2026, translating into approximately K45.79 million per month, inclusive of VAT.
The statutory notice, reportedly issued on October 26, gave MEC seven days to settle the outstanding amount. Daily Times subsequently reported on November 3 that the deadline had expired while the commission remained at the premises.
This raises serious questions about financial management and institutional accountability. Who authorised the continued occupation of the building without settling the reported rental obligations? Was the commission making payments during the disputed period? If payments were withheld, what were the reasons, and who took responsibility for the decision?
MEC cannot expect the public to accept silence where substantial financial obligations are involved. The commission must provide a clear account of the reported K274.8 million and explain how the situation was allowed to reach this stage.
Third: The Njewa warehouse disaster — When financial disputes interfere with democracy
The controversy surrounding MEC’s Njewa warehouse presents another serious challenge. Reports indicate that sheriffs sealed the warehouse on July 15, 2026, following a court process involving a claim by landlord Azmy Ali Jawad.
Times Group reported a court warrant involving recovery of approximately K754 million, while The Nation separately reported a notice of distress amounting to approximately K885.9 million. These are separately reported figures and should not be treated as one confirmed amount.
The warehouse lease reportedly expired on March 31, 2026. MEC spokesperson Sangwani Mwafulirwa said negotiations had taken place before the lease expired, but the commission needed government approval under expenditure-control measures introduced in February. That approval had reportedly not been granted.
The consequences were not merely administrative. MEC rescheduled fresh parliamentary elections in Nsanje South and Mangochi East after essential electoral materials became inaccessible.
This is a deeply troubling development. Electoral materials are not ordinary office property. They are essential resources for the conduct of elections, and their accessibility must be protected through proper planning, sound financial management and timely intervention.
The September electoral calendar had already highlighted the importance of restoring access. The question is why the dispute was allowed to threaten the commission’s operational readiness in the first place.
Fourth: Independence is not financial immunity — Both MEC and government must account
MEC’s constitutional independence must be respected. An independent electoral commission should not be subjected to political manipulation or arbitrary interference that compromises its ability to conduct credible elections.
However, constitutional independence does not place the commission beyond financial scrutiny, contractual obligations or public accountability.
The relocation dispute and the reported rental arrears are separate matters that must be examined on their own merits. Government must explain the legal and administrative basis of its relocation directive, while MEC must account for its financial commitments, contractual decisions and management of essential electoral infrastructure.
Neither side should hide behind institutional authority to avoid legitimate questions.
The public deserves clarity, not competing statements, administrative confusion and prolonged legal battles that undermine confidence in the country’s electoral institutions.
Fifth: The verdict — MEC leadership must stop the excuses and start answering
The leadership of MEC, including Chairperson Justice Annabel Mtalimanja and Chief Elections Officer Andrew Mpesi, must provide clear answers about the commission’s financial and administrative management.
The public deserves to know how the reported rental arrears accumulated, what happened at the Njewa warehouse, why government approval was not secured in time and what measures are being taken to prevent further disruption to electoral operations.
At the very least, MEC must take five urgent steps:
- Provide a detailed account of the reported K274.78 million in outstanding rent at Chisankho House.
- Explain the Njewa warehouse dispute, including the separate reported financial claims and the circumstances that led to the sealing of the premises.
- Clarify the commission’s engagement with government over expenditure approvals and the relocation directive.
- Subject the relevant financial and administrative decisions to an independent review.
- Present a clear operational continuity plan to ensure that disputes over premises, rent or government approvals do not disrupt future electoral activities.
MEC cannot continue operating in an atmosphere of uncertainty while serious questions about its finances and institutional management remain unanswered.
Constitutional independence is important, but so are transparency, discipline and accountability. The commission must demonstrate that it can defend its independence while fulfilling its financial and administrative responsibilities.
The country cannot afford an electoral institution consumed by disputes over buildings, unpaid rent and inaccessible warehouses when its primary responsibility is to safeguard the integrity of elections.
MEC cannot live in extra time forever.
Sharp Focus will continue following these developments and demanding answers wherever public accountability is at stake.
Contact: Phone/WhatsApp: +265 884 433 313
Email: bonnetmunthali2101@gmail.com
Leave a Reply