In a landmark decision, the Supreme Court of Appeal has overturned a controversial High Court ruling that had ordered former President Peter Mutharika and former Chief Secretary Lloyd Muhara to personally pay K69 million in legal costs.
The case stems from a legal battle over Mutharika's decision to send former Chief Justice Andrew Nyirenda into early retirement, a move which was later dismissed by the court.
The ruling, handed down by the Supreme Court earlier this week, marks a significant turn in the ongoing legal saga that dates back to the final months of Mutharika's presidency.
The case at the heart of the matter involves a 2020 legal challenge brought by the Human Rights Defenders Coalition (HRDC), the Magistrates Association of Malawi (MAM), and the Malawi Law Society (MLS).
The organizations took Mutharika and Muhara to court after Mutharika's controversial decision to retire Chief Justice Andrew Nyirenda ahead of his statutory retirement age.
In their court action, the claimants argued that Mutharika's decision was unconstitutional and violated the independence of the judiciary.
The High Court ruled in favor of the claimants, declaring the move to be unlawful, and ordered that costs be paid by the respondents - Mutharika and Muhara - personally.
At the time, the court's decision was seen as a significant victory for the defense of judicial independence in Malawi. However, the matter of the K69 million in legal costs raised eyebrows, with many questioning whether Mutharika and Muhara, as former officials, should bear the financial burden personally.
Mutharika's legal team, led by Samuel Tembenu, contested the High Court's ruling, arguing that as a sitting president at the time, Mutharika was entitled to certain protections and privileges under the law, including immunity from personal financial liabilities arising from his official actions.
In a unanimous ruling, the Supreme Court of Appeal sided with Mutharika's argument, reversing the High Court's order for Mutharika and Muhara to personally pay the K69 million. The court stated that the legal principles surrounding presidential immunity and the privileges afforded to sitting leaders were not adequately considered in the original ruling.
The court's decision now means that Mutharika and Muhara will not be held personally liable for the legal costs, and the claimants will be required to refund any money already paid as part of the legal costs awarded in the original case.
The ruling has significant implications for both Malawi's legal landscape and its political scene. For one, it affirms the extent of presidential immunity and suggests that former heads of state and senior officials may be shielded from personal financial liabilities related to actions undertaken during their tenure.
Samuel Tembenu, one of Mutharika's legal counsels, expressed satisfaction with the Supreme Court's ruling, telling Capital FM: "The court has upheld the principle that the former president is entitled to the protections that come with the office he held. The claimants will now have to return the K69 million that they had received from the respondents."
The decision is likely to have far-reaching effects on how future legal disputes involving former heads of state and government officials are handled, especially when it comes to questions of liability for official decisions.
Mutharika's decision to retire Chief Justice Nyirenda was widely seen as politically motivated and part of broader tensions between the executive and the judiciary. At the time, the move was condemned by many as an attempt to undermine the judiciary's independence, especially considering the proximity of the decision to the 2020 presidential election, in which Mutharika was seeking re-election.
The legal battle also came at a time of heightened public scrutiny over Malawi's political leadership, with many citizens expressing concerns about the potential erosion of democratic institutions.
Sign up for free AllAfrica Newsletters
Get the latest in African news delivered straight to your inbox
In addition to the political ramifications, the ruling on legal costs further highlights the complex interplay between legal accountability, executive power, and the role of the judiciary in Malawi.
With the Supreme Court's decision now final, the case has been put to rest, but questions surrounding the political and legal implications of Mutharika's actions will likely continue to be debated in Malawi's legal and political circles.
It remains to be seen how this ruling will influence future decisions involving state officials and their legal responsibilities, especially when it comes to political disputes involving the judiciary. For now, the focus shifts to the financial fallout for the claimants, who are now required to return the money they had originally received from Mutharika and Muhara.
As Malawi's legal and political systems continue to evolve, the Supreme Court's ruling serves as a reminder of the important balance between presidential powers, judicial independence, and the rule of law in the country.
