BLANTYRE-(MaraviPost)—The Citizens for Transformation (CFT)-People Power Movement has filed a complaint to the Legal Practice Council (LPC) of South Africa against the country’s law firm, Mboweni Maluleke Incorporated Attorneys, over the ‘crooked’ contract with Malawi Electoral Commission (MEC).
MEC sought legal services from the South African based law firm to among other; represent it in the appeal case of the nullified 21 May, 2019 presidential election at a cost of K600 million, but Chief Justice Andrew Nyirenda objected to the decision on Monday, thereby forcing the electoral body to use local services.
However, reports indicate that MEC already paid an upfront of K300 million to the South African lawyers, who have rendered no service to the electoral body, a development that has angered the newly formed political movement.
In a statement released today 17th April by the CFT’s communications and public relations officer, Negracious Justin, the movement has demanded the LPC to summon Maluleke Inc to render a detailed account for work done by them on the Malawi presidential election appeal case.
“This serves to notify all stakeholders and the general public that Citizens for Transformation (CFT) – People Power Movement has laid a formal complaint to the Legal Practice Council (LPC) of South Africa against the Mboweni Maluleke Incorporated Attorneys over the irregular contract with Malawi’s Electoral Commission (MEC) in which the said legal firm charged (and received part thereof) exorbitant legal fees envisaged to be against tariff regulations in the industry.
“CFT has demanded that the LPC should summon Maluleke Inc to render a detailed Statement of Account for the work done by them in the MEC appeal Case, as required by Rule 35.11 of the Rules for Legal Practitioners in South Africa,” reads the statement in part.
Malawi Law Society (MLS) had also objected to Malawi Electoral Commission (MEC) decision to hire South African lawyers to represent it in the presidential election appeal case.
MLS argued that MEC failed to comply with Public Finance Management Act. The argument specified that MEC flouted sections 23 to 26 of the Public Finance Management Act as well as sections 172 and 176 of the Constitution.