By Rahim Abdul
The leadership dispute within the Human Rights Defenders Coalition (HRDC) has taken a fresh twist after the current leadership and the HRDC Ad Hoc Committee issued conflicting statements on the outcome of recent High Court proceedings concerning the organisation’s governance.
In a statement signed by National Chairperson Michael Kaiyatsa and National Coordinator Kelvin Chirwa, the current HRDC leadership said the High Court in Lilongwe dismissed an application for an injunction that sought to stop its leaders from carrying out their responsibilities, insisting that the current leadership remains legally in office.
The statement says Justice Howard Pemba, in his observations, noted governance gaps in HRDC’s Articles of Association and encouraged members to engage in discussions within 30 days on how the gaps should be addressed.
According to the current leadership, the court did not order HRDC to convene an Annual General Meeting (AGM) within 30 days, describing such claims as false and misleading.
HRDC further said it respects the court’s guidance and is committed to engaging members in good faith to strengthen the coalition’s governance framework.
The organisation also urged the public and the media to rely on the actual court ruling and verified information instead of what it described as misleading claims circulating on social media.
However, the HRDC National Ad Hoc Committee has rejected the interpretation by the current leadership, arguing that the court has not yet made a final determination on the leadership dispute.
In a statement signed by Ad Hoc Committee Chairperson Hendreson Mhango and Vice-Chairperson Sammy Aaron, the committee said the matter proceeded to mediation on 23 July 2026 and that no judgment has been delivered on the substantive issues before the court.
The committee said Justice Howard Pemba directed the parties to engage in mediation within 30 days to agree on an appropriate way forward in resolving the governance dispute.
It further argued that mediation should not be interpreted as a determination on the merits of the case, warning that if the parties fail to reach an agreement, the matter will proceed to trial before the High Court.
The Ad Hoc Committee also criticised statements by the current HRDC leadership suggesting the matter had been conclusively determined, saying such remarks could undermine the court-directed mediation process and prejudice efforts to resolve the dispute.
The two statements highlight the continuing disagreement over HRDC’s leadership and governance, with both factions maintaining different interpretations of the ongoing court process while indicating their willingness to follow the court’s directions.
