By Apengie Apengire
Yes, the Malawi Electoral Commission has legitimate legal and constitutional grounds to challenge the presidential directive ordering its relocation from Lilongwe to Blantyre, even though its initial application was dismissed on procedural grounds.
Executive Order No. 1 of 2025, signed by President Peter Mutharika on 10 October 2025, instructed MEC, MACRA, and Malawi Housing Corporation to return their headquarters to Blantyre, and the Malawi Prison Service to Zomba, within three months. The order cited “strategic realignment and equitable regional development” and stated that Blantyre has existing infrastructure to host the institutions without disrupting operations.
MEC’s challenge is rooted in institutional independence. Section 76(4) of the Constitution and Section 6(1)(f) of the Malawi Electoral Commission Act guarantee the Commission’s autonomy in discharging its duties.
MEC argues that an executive directive dictating its physical location interferes with that independence and risks undermining public confidence in its impartiality.
Legal scholar Dr. Benedette Malunga has noted that MEC is within its rights to seek judicial interpretation on whether executive orders can override the operational autonomy of a constitutional body.
The High Court in Lilongwe did not rule on those constitutional questions. Justice Simeon Mdeza dismissed MEC’s application on 27 February 2026 because it was filed 18 days outside the three-month window for judicial review under Order 19 Rule 20(5) of the Courts Rules.
The dismissal was procedural. The court did not determine whether the President has authority to relocate an independent electoral management body. MEC has since resolved to pursue further legal steps to have the substantive constitutional issues “properly and definitively determined”.
The Attorney General contends Mutharika acted within his powers under Section 89(5) of the Constitution and that the order is a non-justiciable policy directive. He also pointed out that MEC itself moved from Blantyre to Lilongwe in June 2023 under the Chakwera administration, incurring costs it then deemed justifiable.
Civil society groups and governance observers have questioned the timing, cost, and impact.
The Centre for Social Concern and Transparency called the directive “wasteful” and “insensitive” during a period of food insecurity and economic distress, arguing relocation is not a priority and appears driven by political symbolism rather than efficiency.
Observers also note the operational sensitivity of moving an electoral body, especially with electoral processes on the horizon.
So, is MEC justified? Legally, yes. A constitutional body has standing to test whether executive action encroaches on its independence. The courts have not yet settled that question.
Politically, the justification remains contested between arguments of regional balance and concerns over cost, disruption, and institutional autonomy.
The standoff continues, with the Ministry of Lands refusing to renew MEC’s lease for Chisankho House while MEC insists it will remain to ensure continuity.
