The People Against Confusion (PAC), the grouping promoting peaceful co-existence in this country, brought this matter before the tribunal against the conduct of Mapuya and Tally-Star Chazizira, who were related through the marriage of Chazizira to Mapuya’s late brother, Chitsulo Chanjanji.
Traditionally, the in-law status between the two was abrogated after chief Ngalangalawa led in administering the estate of the late Chitsulo Chanjanji.
The matter before this tribunal, therefore, is not about whether the disposal of the estate was not done properly either is it a claim of maintenance by the surviving spouse.
Rather, PAC wanted this court to act on the two former in-laws who are busy publically castigating each other on political podiums on matters that are not related to politics.
In filing for complaint against the two, PAC argued that it was irresponsible of the two to be washing their dirty family linen on podiums instead of outlining plans and programmes they would implement if their respective parties won the forthcoming elections in Nyasaland.
I agree with PAC that Nyasas are not going to benefit from pronouncements of who has the longest pee between the two.
The two politicians are, therefore, being petty in their proclamations against each other.
The tribunal knows that as a public officer, Mapuya is liable to public scrutiny. Public scrutiny means he will be subjected to harsh criticism expressed in unpalatable words. Sometimes he will be called derogatory names. And you can’t use any law to protect yourself against criticism unless if it constitutes gross violation of privacy. This one does not.
Having said that, did the description of Mapuya as mtchona add any value to the campaign talk that Chazizira was delivering? Not at all. That was puerile talk for sure.
Assuming it is true that Mapuya has failed to integrate into the Nyasaland’s way of life because he is a mtchona, does that make him a less brother-in-law?
And for Mapuya to go as far as telling people about the conduct of Chazizira during the funeral of her husband, that was uncalled for.
Depending on what version of the story you have chosen to believe— does arriving earlier or later at a funeral house make somebody an affable character worth voting for?
PAC is right that personal issues between the two should not be fodder for public consumption, especially at political rallies.
Such tirades have potential to perpetuate political violence, something that PAC doesn’t want to see happen.
People, who invest a lot of time to listen to issues that would help them make informed choices during the forthcoming elections, want to listen to real issues.
This tribunal, therefore, orders that any further personal attacks from the two would warrant suspension of both from participating in politics.
Default judgement delivered in the open Court this 19th day of August, 2018 in Thyolo.