As some people under the banner of The Concerned Citizens of Malawi were demonstrating against the use of national identity cards for the forthcoming general elections, the main opposition Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) was receiving the wrath of the Court on the same.
DPP made an application on issue of summons against the Malawi Elections Commission (MEC) on its insistence to use national identity cards during the voters registration exercise for the forthcoming election in the country.
However, in his ruling dated October 9 2024, High Court of Malawi assistant registrar Elijah Blackboard Daniels rejected the application describing it as a hopeless attempt full of errors aimed at testing the waters.
Is the claimant being denied her constitutional right to vote? Can she even possess that right? Has she been denied any civil rights? Did she go to register as a voter somewhere where a zealous elections officer (credit be given t”o their work) or whosoever it may be, returned her on the premise that, she did not possess a national identity card? We do not have immediate answers.
“We do not promise that we will. In fact, the claimant herself has not supplied us with answers in the originating process. Perhaps, she has capacity to possess a national identity card or to be forced into having one? There is, a sea of questions that are coming to our faculties with force, but, we decline to announce ourselves, for ours is apolitical role to only deal with legal issues, regard being had to prescriptions of law.
“We accordingly warn ourselves not to divert from this our premise. Perhaps, we are asking the wrong questions? We do not know. We wish we did. But we do not. It still torments our mind to ask, has she shown any reasonable cause of action? Or, is it even for us, to determine that?
“The facts, will soon betray her on many a question we have. But, why then is the claimant coming in her own name over the issues of voter registration as though she has capacity to have her voting rights violated directly? Ours is simply a wonder.
“We are unsure as to what is the motivation of the claimant in coming in her own name. We must in limine determine the fate of the originating process for want of capacity. We think her coming is an outright abuse of court process.
“Be that as it may, maybe we should allow ourselves to ask the last question? However, we must make no promise on that, rest we betray our inquisitive finger later. But, who anointed her to be a constitutional guardian, walking around our streets and villages, volunteering hope to those she thinks will be denied the right to vote by the Defendant’s decision to enforce section 12 of the Presidential, Parliamentary and Local Government Elections Act, 2023? Was it not easy for those with standing to come in her stead?
“We have searched and searched through their summons and the statement of case and theyhave not supplied us with the answers we need. Clearly, they are testing the waters. We must pause here, and make a promise that, we will come back to address this issue late when the time is ripe. Now is not the time,” reads part of the ruling
The court further noted that is not a person who should be bringing the process to Court because there is no damage that the claimant suffered.
“What we ask ourselves is this? What damage or injury to their rights has the claimant suffered? Did the claimant go to register somewhere and they were rejected to so register? We are forced to repeat this question. But, how was that? Perhaps, the claimant met what we have not seen in the summons? Again, we refuse to speculate. What we know is that, it is frivolous and vexatious for the claimant to bring an action where her rights have not been violated or that they cannot show how that they have a proper standing.
“An abuse of Court process is clear when one seeks the audience of the Court by self-anointing, when there are persons who should be doing that in the first place. Like seen above, an abuse of Court process is identified as a matter of fact and it refuses to be definitively defined.
“What we think is that, the claimant cannot or perhaps should not anoint herself as a custodian of the constitution when those that suffer any injury on their rights, may well be allowed to seek the audience of the Court. Surely, the claimant does not have the right to vote. If it had, how would that be enforced? It is those people that follow her who may have a claim that she has so far anointed herself to burden. We think that burden must be lifted. But, that is just our innocent view. Clearly, we have a frivolous originating process, it should not be for the claimant to bring these legitimate issues to Court. Perhaps, as a friend of the Court. But, not coming in her own name as she has done,” noted the judge
he added; “the claimant is not a person who should be bringing this process. We must not be heard to mean that a novel proceeding, would be an abuse of Court processes simply because it appears to us that it may not have a real prospect of success. We have said, to know that a proceeding amounts to an abuse of Court process, is a question of fact, to be answered on a case by case basis. What we have before us, is Exhibit A of an intendment to abuse our processes. The claimant clearly, does not have capacity to sue on the issues she has raised. Her actions are a total abuse of our processes.
“It is from the foregoing, that we hereby reject to issue the summons. The law would not permit the claimant to so anoint herself and violate the rules as we have this far indicated”.
