By Our Reporter
The Democratic Progressive Party has said its Secretary General, Hon. Peter Mukhito, was right to warn that proposed parliamentary inquiries risked crossing constitutional boundaries, after the High Court temporarily halted the proceedings pending judicial review.
The court’s decision does not amount to a final ruling that the Speaker acted unlawfully. However, the DPP says it confirms that the constitutional questions raised by Mukhito were serious enough to warrant judicial determination.
Mukhito had earlier been criticised in some quarters as interfering politically when he cautioned that oversight must not drift into investigation.
In a statement, the DPP stressed that it supports Parliament’s role to scrutinise government and hold public officers accountable.
“Parliament must scrutinise Government. Public institutions must account for public resources. Ministers and public officers must answer legitimate questions. That is democracy,” the party said.
“But democracy also requires boundaries. Parliament is not the Executive. Parliament is not the Police. Parliament is not the Anti-Corruption Bureau. Parliament is not the Judiciary.”
The party argued that each institution derives its powers from the Constitution and must exercise them without usurping the functions of another, which it said was the principle Mukhito was defending.
The DPP urged that the High Court’s intervention should not be framed as a political victory over Speaker Sameer Suleman, noting the substantive matter remains before the courts.
It also pointed out that government did not institute the proceedings. According to the party, the case was brought by a private citizen exercising the right to seek judicial review.
“The DPP has nothing to fear from lawful scrutiny. What it rejects is the suggestion that accountability can only be achieved by ignoring constitutional limits. Accountability without legality is not accountability. It is institutional overreach,” the statement read.
The party said Malawi’s democracy is strongest when Parliament provides robust oversight, the Executive governs within the law, investigative agencies perform their statutory functions, and the courts independently interpret the Constitution.
“Was Mukhito right to raise the alarm? Yes, he was right to insist that the constitutional boundaries be examined,” the DPP concluded.
It added that the final word on the legality of the proposed inquiries belongs to the courts, not politicians.
The party summed up its position: “Oversight—yes. Accountability—yes. Constitutional overreach—no. Rule of law—always. Nobody is above scrutiny. And nobody is above the Constitution.”
The matter is expected back in court for further judicial review.
