By Cristabel Longwe
LILONGWE
While many religions affiliates have argued Bishop Chirwa’s character and past history does not show a violent personality capable of murder, lawyers argue prosecution must prove malice and causation, not just association. Otherwise Malawi sets an ugly precedence of legal injustice by prosecuting on opinion, feelings and association.
The defence for Bishop Medram Chirwa is now calling for immediate dismissal of the murder case against him, arguing that the two pillars currently cited — a phone call log and a prior friendship/acquaintance with the deceased Tathokoza Salimu — do not meet the legal test for a prosecutable murder case in Malawi.
Human rights defenders have also weighed in on the case, arguing malicious arrest, false imprisonment, and insufficient evidence. The allegation of murder and extended detention raises a lot of questions and suspicions. Bishop Chirwa and followers, congregate in the MCP Head Quarters building in Lilongwe, where Fountain of Victory Church is renting space since 2015. Apostle Ziba and Church have however remained non partisan, and some times more associated with the ruling DPP due to it’s head office being founded in Blantyre City.
Bishop Chirwa, leader of Fountain of Victory Church, was arrested on 6 October 2026 and remanded at Maula Prison in connection with the death of Ms Salimu, an FDH Bank employee found dead on 21 September 2026 in her car near Tatolonga Bridge, Dowa.
At Mkukula First Grade Magistrate Court, prosecutor Ian Ntaba confirmed the magistrate court has no jurisdiction over murder. The case awaits High Court committal for bail and plea.
Church founder Apostle Joseph Ziba, in a memo dated 9 October, said the church is not aware of conclusive evidence linking the Bishop to the offence, and that a police search of his home and church premises did not recover a weapon.
Court reporting indicates the State’s early material includes phone records showing communication between the two, and information that they knew each other.
Defence sources now argue that is insufficient.
MALAWI LAW: ASSOCIATION IS NOT MURDER
Under Section 209 of the Penal Code, murder requires proof of:
a) Death of a human being
b) Unlawful act causing death
c) Causation
d) Malice aforethought
A senior criminal law practitioner in Lilongwe explained:
“In Malawi, our courts have repeatedly held that friendship, acquaintance, or even a love relationship does not prove murder. In R v Chikakwiya (High Court), the court stated that motive without actus reus is not criminal. Call logs prove contact. Friendship proves they knew each other. Neither proves who caused death, how death occurred, or that there was intent to kill.”
The lawyer added that the State would need to corroborate the call log with:
1. Forensic Pathology:
Postmortem report showing cause of death — was it strangulation, poisoning, stabbing — and that it was homicidal
2. Place and Time Link: Cell-site analysis placing the accused at Tatolonga at the time of death, not just that they spoke earlier
3. Physical Evidence: DNA, blood, fingerprints, weapon, or vehicle tracking.
4. Disproving Alibi: The Bishop has raised an alibi of being at Mbwatalika, Lilongwe District, with three witnesses. Under Section 238 of the Criminal Procedure and Evidence Code, once an alibi is raised with details, the prosecution must disprove it beyond reasonable doubt.
Without these, the defence contends, the case is still at suspicion stage.
WHY ALLEGATION OF FRIENDSHIP CANNOT BE THE BASIS
Malawi’s Supreme Court of Appeal in _Republic v Mtambo_ cautioned against prosecuting no on association. The court noted that in communities, pastors, bankers, church members and colleagues interact regularly. Phone communication is normal pastoral work for a Bishop.
If mere friendship plus a phone call were enough to prosecute murder, thousands of innocent contacts would be suspects, the defence argues.
A second legal expert noted: “The prosecution must separatei two questions. Question 1: Did they know each other? Question 2: Did he kill her? The first is not proof of the second. The court needs evidence of the second.”
Human rights lawyer in Lilongwe also pointed to constitutional protections. Section 42(2)(f)(iii) presumes innocence. Section 42(2)(e) guarantees trial within reasonable time. Continued detention for over 30 days without committal documentsj showing forensic linkage may trigger a High Court bail application.
WHAT THE DPP WILL CONSIDER
The Director of Public Prosecutions, under Section 101 of the Constitution, reviews murder dockets to decide if there is sufficient evidence to commit to trial. The test used is “is there a reasonable prospect of conviction?”
The DPP checklist includes:
– Postmortem report
– Forensic lab results
– Statements of alibi witnesses
– CCTV or phone geolocation
Police spokesperson Peter Kalaya has said investigations continue and other suspects have been pursued, indicating the docket may still be incomplete.
The Salimu family has not commented on the evidence debate, asking to be left to mourn.
NEXT STEPS
The defence is expected to file:
1. Application for bail in the High Court
2. Request for disclosure of full docket, including postmortem and forensic report
3. Application for discharge under Section 208 CP&EC if committal shows no prima facie case.
If the case is discharged for insufficient evidence, the accused is released. If later evidence emerges, the State can re-arrest. If detention is found to have been without lawful justification, Section 46(4) of the Constitution allows a civil claim for false imprisonment — but acquittal or discharge alone does not automatically mean compensation; unlawfulness of the arrest must be proved, as held in Phiri v Lujeri Tea Estates
Until then, Bishop Chirwa remains innocent and on remand, not convicted.
