Malawi's top lawyer has come out fighting for President Peter Mutharika. Attorney General Frank Mbeta insists the President was perfectly entitled to hold back the Mid-Year Budget Review meeting, and that anyone calling it unconstitutional has got the law wrong.

Mbeta says the dates for Parliament are only set after consultation between the President and the Speaker, and that the President has a say in when MPs sit.

"It is therefore within the President's powers to postpone the meeting of the National Assembly in order to cater for these national needs. There is nothing unconstitutional about the President's decision whatsoever," he said.

He points to money as the deciding factor.

Keep up with the latest headlines on WhatsApp | LinkedIn

Fuel shortages, and the need to stock up on food and supplies ahead of anticipated El Niño conditions, were reasons enough to delay the sitting, he argued.

"In deciding on whether the date has to be set for a meeting of the National Assembly, there are several factors that the President need to take into account, including availability of funds for the meeting," he said.

The problem is that the Malawi Law Society (MLS) reads the same law in a very different way. Its chairperson, Davis Njobvu, and honorary secretary, Francis Ekari M'mame, say Section 59(1) lets the President summon extraordinary sittings and prorogue Parliament, but gives him no power to order the Speaker to scrap a meeting that is already on the calendar.

The Society also says that allowing the Executive to decide when Parliament does its business raises serious questions about Parliament's independence.

So both sides are quoting the same section of the Constitution to defend opposite conclusions.

Mbeta says the President was within his rights. The Law Society says he was not.

Malawi's MPs, meanwhile, are left waiting to see who wins.