d
Follow us
Image Alt
  >  Litigation   >  Judicial Review Case Number 6 of 2023: The State (On the Application of the Malawi Law Society v Prosecutor Levison Mangani SACP, The Chief Resident Magistrate (Lilongwe) and the Secretary to the President and Cabinet

Judicial Review Case Number 6 of 2023: The State (On the Application of the Malawi Law Society v Prosecutor Levison Mangani SACP, The Chief Resident Magistrate (Lilongwe) and the Secretary to the President and Cabinet

On 6th February, 2023, the MLS obtained permission to apply for a judicial review of some impugned 2 decisions of the defendants pertaining to the Director of the Anti-Corruption Bureau, Ms. Martha Chizuma. The impugned decisions are, namely, the decision of the 1st defendant on 25th January, 2023 to charge the Director of the Anti-Corruption Bureau before the 2nd defendant of criminal charges of making use of speech related to a certain now publicly well-known audio recording made in January, 2022 and the decision of the 3rd defendant Colleen Zamba on 31st January, 2023 to interdict the Director of the Anti-Corruption Bureau from exercising her functions and duties in view of the said criminal charges.

The court granted the judgment in favour of the MLS. Among others, the court held that the criminal proceeding commenced by the 1st defendant before the 2nd defendant was null and void for having been commenced without addressing the question of immunity of the Director of the Anti-Corruption Bureau in terms of her alleged action in relation to the leaked audio therein being in bad faith. The conduct of the 1st defendant impaired the independent work of the Director of the Anti-Corruption Bureau. The court also held that the 3rd defendant would have done well to heed the public pronouncements and stand of her principal, the President of the Republic, made in the public interest in relation to the handling of the leaked audio saga in view of the efforts of the Director of the Anti-Corruption Bureau as a champion of the fight against the vice of corruption. 3rd defendant therefore failed to appreciate that she could only exercise the authority of her office to the extent provided by the law as the Constitution prescribes.

Post a Comment

Need Help?