The High Court of Malawi has rejected Malawi Electoral Commission’s (MEC) judicial review application seeking an interpretation of President Peter Mutharika’s Executive Order to relocate its headquarters to Blantyre.
But when asked on MEC’s next course of action following the ruling, the electoral body’s director of media and public relations Sangwani Mwafulirwa on Friday said he would revert.
If MEC does not challenge the ruling, it means it will have to comply with the Executive Order by way of relocating.
In his ruling on Thursday, High Court of Malawi Judge Simeon Mdeza stated that MEC filed its application seeking the judicial review outside the prescribed time, on January 27 2026, when the Executive Order was made on October 10 2025.
The Judge, in his ruling, stressed that courts in Malawi have consistently treated time-limits in judicial review proceedings with strictness; hence, queried MEC why it delayed in filing the application.
Reads part of the ruling: “In view of the totality of the foregoing, I proceed to dismiss the claimant’s (MEC) application for permission to commence judicial review against the defendants (President Peter Mutharika) decision, together with all other incidental applications, with costs.
“On the claimant’s application to refer the matter to the Honourable Chief Justice for certification, my considered opinion is that there is no proceeding to refer to the Chief Justice for certification under Section 9 of the Courts Act, see Mutharika and Another v Chilima and Another MSCA Constitutional Appeal Number 1 of 2020. I, therefore, dismiss this application with costs.”
According to a sworn statement by MEC chairperson Annabel Mtalimanja, the electoral body was not sent the Executive Order on the day it was issued, on October 10 2025 suffice to say it was circulating on social media.
In the sworn statement, Mtalimanja, who is also a Judge of the High Court of Malawi, stated that MEC received the Executive Order on December 9 2025 through the Office of the President and Cabinet (OPC).
She further stated on December 11 2025, MEC resolved that it would not comply with the Executive Order on the basis that the decision undermines the electoral body’s independence which is guaranteed under the law; hence, on January 6 and 7 2026 MEC opted to seek a judicial review as a way of challenging the Executive Order.
Following MEC’s filing of its judicial review application, on February 17 2026 Attorney General Frank Farouk Mbeta responded through a sworn statement in which he opposed the application.
Among others, Mbeta argued that MEC’s application was filed outside the required timelines set under Order 19 Rule 20 (5) of the Civil Procedure Rules (CPR).
Mbeta further argued that MEC did not even make a preliminary application for an extension of time within which to commence an application for judicial review as required under Order 19 Rule 20 (6) of the CPR.
This was regardless of the fact that MEC was fully aware they were outside time as required by the rules of the procedure.
Two days later, MEC filed an application to extend time within which it could file for judicial review.
In his sworn statement in support of the application, MEC director of legal affairs David Banda argued that they did not file the application in time because they were not formally informed of the decision.
MEC further filed another application seeking to strike out the Mbeta’s sworn statement opposing the judicial review proceedings on the basis that there is no date on the first page of his sworn statement, and that the said statement is argumentative and the dates appearing on the sworn statement are different.
In his response, Mbeta argued that the defects were in form and, therefore, curable under Order 2 of the CPR.
Then, on February 19 2026, MEC filed an application to refer the matter to the Chief Justice to certify it as a constitutional matter under Section 9 of the Courts Act.
But the Attorney General argued that there is no competent proceeding to refer it to the Chief Justice for Certification.
