LILONGWE-(MaraviPost)-A coalition of civil society organisations has formally petitioned President Professor Arthur Peter Mutharika to withhold assent to the Constitution (Amendment) Bill No. 2 of 2025, warning that the proposed law poses serious constitutional, governance and public finance risks.
In a petition submitted to the Office of the President and Cabinet, the organisations acting under the National Advocacy Platform (NAP) and its partners have asked the President to exercise his powers under Section 73(1) of the Constitution to refuse assent to the Bill, which Parliament passed on December 2, 2025.
Some of signatories to the petition including Benedicto Kondowe, NAP Chairperson, Hadrod Zeru Mkandawire, MALGA Executive Director, Willy Kambwandira, Bertha Phiri – MEJN Executive Director, Michael Kaiyatsa – CHRR Executive Director, Charles Kajoloweka – YAS Executive Director, Maggie Kathewera Banda, Moses Mkandawire and others.
The petitioners emphasise that the President’s authority to assent to or withhold assent from legislation is a substantive constitutional safeguard, not a ceremonial duty.
They argue that Section 73 was designed to protect constitutionalism, legality and the public interest, particularly where legislation is constitutionally defective or injurious to national governance.
Central to their concern is the existence of an active judicial process before the Supreme Court of Appeal.
The Attorney General has already appealed against a Constitutional Court judgment that ruled Members of Parliament should not be involved in the management of the Constituency Development Fund (CDF). That appeal remains pending and no determination has yet been made.
The coalition argues that by proceeding with a constitutional amendment on the same matter, Parliament risks pre empting the outcome of the court process.
They warn that assenting to such a Bill would place the Executive in an inconsistent position seeking judicial clarity on one hand while endorsing a constitutional amendment designed to override the issue under adjudication on the other.
The petition further states that the Bill attempts to constitutionalise conduct that the Constitutional Court has already found to be unconstitutional.
The court previously ruled that allowing MPs to select, implement and oversee CDF projects violates the separation of powers and creates conflicts of interest.
According to the petitioners, converting such practices into constitutional provisions undermines judicial authority and weakens respect for the rule of law.
Concerns have also been raised about the Bill’s implications for decentralisation and local governance.
The organisations argue that the amendment shifts development authority away from Local Government Councils, which are constitutionally mandated under Section 146 and vests it in Members of Parliament who are not development administrators.
They describe this as a structural regression that weakens accountability and fragments development planning.
The coalition has further warned of grave public finance and governance risks, particularly in light of the anticipated increase in CDF allocations from K220 million to approximately K5 billion per constituency in the next fiscal year.
They argue that placing control of such substantial resources in political hands without robust administrative and oversight systems exposes public funds to patronage, misuse and fiscal indiscipline.
Process related concerns also feature prominently in the petition. The organisations argue that constitutional amendments require broad national consensus, transparency and meaningful public participation, standards they say were not met in this case. They cite widespread opposition from civil society, faith based institutions, traditional leaders and local government authorities.
They also reference public opinion data indicating that a majority of Malawians prefer the CDF to be managed by Local Government Councils rather than Members of Parliament. Proceeding in defiance of this expressed public preference, the petition argues, undermines democratic legitimacy and erodes public trust in constitutional reform.
Additionally, the coalition notes that the amendment was introduced as a Private Member’s Bill without Cabinet sponsorship, comprehensive legal review or detailed fiscal analysis.
They warn that this sets a dangerous precedent by reducing constitutional reform to political expediency rather than a deliberate and nationally owned process.
In their appeal, the organisations urge President Mutharika to withhold assent, return the Bill to Parliament with detailed constitutional reasons under Section 73(2) and allow the Supreme Court of Appeal to conclude its adjudication without legislative interference.