Five days before Malawians go to the polls, the Malawi Electoral Commission (MEC) is yet to decide on the High Court decisions ordering the body to include two candidates who were disqualified on the final list of parliamentary candidates for the September 16 2025 general elections.
On Monday, September 8, Judge Madalitso Khose-Chimwaza ruled that MEC wrongly disqualified UTM candidate for Nkhotakota Liwaladzi constituency, Daniel Binda, and has ordered his inclusion amongst contestants.
On Tuesday, September 9, Judge Howard Pemba also ordered MEC to include Dedza Mtakataka Constituency candidate Charles Sandram on the final list of parliamentary candidates after he was wrongly disqualified.
Reacting to the developments, MEC Director of Media and Public Relations Sangwani Mwafulirwa said they will comment later.
“MEC will speak at an appropriate time on this,” said Mwafulirwa in a brief response.
The two were disqualified because they paid nomination fees under the category of a youth when they were not.
Through their lawyer Khwima Mchizi, Binda challenged the decision, arguing that MEC did not inform the candidates during both pre-inspection and after nominations presentation of the anomaly.
“We argued that MEC has a legal obligation to inform candidates of any anomaly during the nominations pre-inspection exercise and during the nominations presentation, but this did not happen. They just informed them of the disqualification. If they had informed them at the right time, the mistake would have been corrected.
Although the court found that the two were not youths at the time of presenting their nominations, it faulted MEC Returning Officers for failing their statutory duties regarding the nomination process.
“The law is clear. Where a nomination paper is found to be defective, it is a ‘must’ for the Returning Officer to inform the candidate ‘at the earliest opportunity’, and in any case ‘before the close of the nomination period’ of this defect. The Claimant stated that he presented his nomination form to the returning officer for pre-inspection and only the issue of the symbol of his logo was pointed out to be defective to which he addressed. In my view, the issue of his nomination fee was equally a defect that would have been cured easily by advising the Claimant to pay the remaining balance and would have been done within the shortest time possible.
“It is on account of these observations that I find that the Returning Officer failed in that responsibility. The Claimant’s assertion that he received no communication regarding any defect in his nomination by the close of the nomination period stands unchallenged by any credible evidence from the Defendant. Had the Returning Officer discharged his statutory duty with due diligence, this matter would likely not have reached this stage. The lack of communication constitutes a procedural failure on the part of the Commission through its Returning Officer,” reads part of the ruling by judge Pemba
