President Peter Mutharika’s administration has drawn criticism for postponing the Mid-Year Budget Review Meeting of Parliament with stakeholders questioning the legality of the decision and accountability for the K10.9 trillion 2026/27 National Budget.
In a letter dated October 23 2026 addressed to Speaker of Parliament Sameer Suleman, the President directed that the Fourth Meeting of the 52nd Session of Parliament should be postponed until the Budget Meeting next year so that resources are redirected towards El Niño and fuel-related challenges.
“By virtue of the provision under Section 59(1) of the Constitution of the Republic of Malawi, I direct that the Fourth Meeting of the 52nd Session of Parliament be postponed until the next Budget Meeting,” reads the letter.
Ironically, Section 59(1) provides for parliamentary sessions to start at a time appointed by the Speaker in consultation with the President while subsequent meetings are determined by the relevant chamber. The section also provides for the President, in consultation with the Speaker, to prorogue—officially end a current legislative session without dissolving Parliament entirely—Parliament.
The decision has drawn questions about the extent of the President’s constitutional powers to postpone an already scheduled parliamentary meeting, the Speaker’s role in determining Parliament business and the implications for legislative oversight of public finances.
In a written response yesterday, Malawi Law Society honorary secretary Francis Mmame observed that while Section 59(1) gives the power to appoint when each meeting of the National Assembly starts to the Speaker, in consultation with the President, the President’s own powers under the section are limited.
“He [the President] may summon an extraordinary meeting, in consultation with the Speaker, may prorogue the assembly, in consultation with the Speaker and under Section 59(3) and (4), he may open a session and fix its duration, again in consultation with the Speaker,” he said.
Mmame said there is no provision that allows the President to cancel or move an appointed meeting alone.
He further observed that the Speaker and the President had already consulted and agreed on the dates of the meetings which were gazetted, highlighting that “the consultation gives the President a right to be heard, not a veto, and it cannot be repeated after the event to reverse an outcome already agreed”.
“On those facts, the postponement appears to be unconstitutional. We have not seen the gazette notice and this reading is arguable and has not been tested in court,” said Mmame.
But he said parliamentary committees can continue to give parliamentary oversight on public finance management.
Mmame also highlighted that the Public Finance Management Act does not specifically provide for a Mid-Year Budget Review, although in practice the arrangement has allowed the Minister of Finance to bring proposed adjustments to the National Assembly.
National Advocacy Platform chairperson Benedicto Kondowe said the distinction between postponing a scheduled meeting and proroguing Parliament was legally significant.
He said the decision must be assessed against the constitutional procedures governing parliamentary meetings, including the Speaker’s role and Parliament’s approved calendar.
on November 9. | Nation
Kondowe, a private practice lawyer, acknowledged that redirecting resources towards pressing national challenges was a legitimate policy consideration, but said the exercise of constitutional powers must comply with prescribed procedures.
Presidential press secretary Cathy Maulidi referred questions about the postponement to the Speaker, saying: “The Speaker is in the best position to answer this question.”
Suleman in a statement last evening announced the postponement of the meeting, but did not specify the reasons.
Parliament was scheduled to meet from November 9 to December 11 2026 for the 2026/27 Mid-Year Budget Review Meeting when the fiscal plan comes under scrutiny regarding its performance and redirecting resources where necessary.
Ministry of Finance, Economic Planning and Decentralisation spokesperson Williams Banda said the ministry had already prepared the Mid-year Budget Review Statement.
“As Ministry of Finance, Economic Planning and Decentralisation, we have already prepared the Mid-Year Budget Review Statement for Parliament and at an appropriate time we will present it in Parliament,” he said.
Beyond the constitutional questions, the postponement has raised concerns about the scrutiny of the K10.98 trillion 2026/27 National Budget, which projects K8.13 trillion in revenue and grants against a deficit of K2.85 trillion.
In an interview yesterday, economic governance expert Dalitso Kubalasa warned that delaying the review could weaken fiscal credibility by reducing opportunities to scrutinise revenue shortfalls, expenditure overruns and borrowing.
“The deeper risk is erosion of credibility. Markets and development partners watch whether a country’s legislature actually exercises its oversight role,” he said.
Kubalasa proposed regular publication of fiscal performance reports, formal briefings to parliamentary committees by Treasury and the Reserve Bank of Malawi, and transparent reporting of emergency expenditure reallocations.
But in a separate interview, University of Malawi economics lecturer Edward Leman acknowledged that parliamentary meetings consume substantial public resources and that postponement could be economically justified.
However, he warned that delaying the review could heighten the risk of fiscal indiscipline and poor resource allocation.
UTM Party spokesperson Felix Njawala said the mid-year review was important because it enables legislators to measure government’s revenue and expenditure performance.
Leader of Opposition in Parliament Simplex Chithyola Banda and Budget and Finance Committee of Parliament chairperson Sosten Gwengwe were also approached for comment, but had not responded by the time of going to press.
The Constitution sets no maximum duration for a postponement and no circumstances in which one is allowed or disallowed with Section 59(2) requiring at least three meetings per parliamentary session.
