By Burnett Munthali
In a historic and precedent-setting decision, the High Court of Malawi, sitting as a Constitutional Court, has declared Section 200 of the Penal Code—Malawi’s longstanding criminal defamation law—unconstitutional.
The ruling was handed down in July 2025 by a panel of three judges: Justices Kachale, Mwale, and Mvula, who unanimously found the provision to be in violation of fundamental rights protected under the Constitution.
The case was brought before the court by political activist and outspoken social commentator Joshua Chisa Mbele, who challenged the legality of using criminal sanctions to regulate defamation, arguing that the law was being weaponized to silence dissent and suppress freedom of expression.
In its judgment, the Constitutional Court agreed with the petitioner, holding that Section 200 of the Penal Code imposed unjustifiable limitations on freedom of speech, which is a cornerstone of Malawi’s democratic system and guaranteed under Section 35 of the Constitution.
The Court further emphasized that while protecting reputations is important, such protection must not come at the expense of the public’s right to free expression, particularly on matters of public interest and accountability.
The judges noted that civil remedies for defamation remain available to those whose reputations are genuinely harmed, and that criminalizing speech has a chilling effect on open dialogue, media freedom, and democratic participation.
Legal experts and human rights advocates have hailed the ruling as a major victory for civil liberties and a progressive step toward reforming outdated colonial-era laws that continue to linger in Malawi’s legal system.
The decision aligns Malawi with a growing body of jurisprudence across Africa and beyond that affirms the primacy of civil mechanisms over criminal penalties in defamation cases.
Joshua Chisa Mbele, who has faced repeated arrests and court battles over his outspoken views on politics and governance, welcomed the judgment as a vindication of both his struggle and the broader fight for democratic rights in Malawi.
“This ruling is not just about me,” he said after the judgment. “It is about protecting all Malawians from the threat of criminal prosecution simply for speaking their minds.”
The ruling sets a legal precedent that is likely to influence future interpretations of constitutional rights, especially in cases involving freedom of speech, political commentary, and media work.
It also serves as a powerful reminder to public officials and authorities that the Constitution must be the guiding light in any attempt to restrict personal freedoms.
The decision to strike down Section 200 of the Penal Code is being seen as a milestone in Malawi’s legal evolution—one that underscores the country’s commitment to democratic principles and the rule of law.
