PANAPRESS
Panafrican News Agency
Malawi court stops Mutharika from signing controversial bill into law
Blantyre, Malawi (PANA) - The High Court, sitting in the capital, Lilongwe, Monday granted an injunction to a group of civil rights organisations, stopping Malawi President Bingu wa Mutharika from assenting to a controversial bill.
The ruling Democratic Progressive Party (DPP)-led Parliament last week passed what is officially called the Civil Procedure (suits by or against government or public officers) Act Amendment Bill - famously known as the "Injunctions Bill" - which the civil rights organisation views as a trick by government to stop citizens from challenging undemocratic actions of government.
The new bill effectively outlaws ex parte (one side) injunctions and insists that the Attorney General, the government legal counsel, must always be present when an injunction application is being held.
"An injunction is an interim relief by an aggrieved party," argued lawyer Wapona Kita representing the Human Rights Consultative Committee (HRCC) that applied the injunction on behalf of the Catholic Commission for Justice and Peace, the Church and Society of the Church of Central Africa Presbyterian (CCAP), the Centre for the Development of People (CEDEP) and the Centre for Human Rights and Rehabilitation (CHRR).
Presiding judge, Justice Ivy Kamanga, granted the injunction restraining Mutharika from assenting to the bill (turning it into law) and ordered a judicial review on the constitutionality of the proposed new law.
Kita, speaking outside the court, said this means the President's hands are tied. This means the bill is in suspense, the President cannot assent to it to make it into law."
The controversial bill has divided the country, with most analysts accusing the Mutharika administration of becoming increasingly autocratic by denying people from challenging its decision.
In a dramatic turn of events, even DPP Members of Parliament revolted and either outright rejected it or abstained from voting.
"This is a bad law," was the unequivocal verdict of DPP's Henry Dama Phoya, who is Chairman of the Parliamentary Legal Affairs Committee.
The former Justice Minister and Attorney General, a lawyer by profession, abstained from voting.
Over 10 DPP MPs also either abstained or voted it down.
Former Vice-President Cassim Chilumpha, himself a lawyer and member of the former ruling United Democratic Front (UDF), accused Mutharika and the DPP of seeking absolute power with the proposed new law.
"Government everywhere is already powerful and an ordinary human being cannot compete against it," he said, adding that "injunctions were the only protection citizens had against government's human rights abuses and taking it away is making government even more powerful, while making citizens vulnerable."
However, Information Minister Symon Vuwa Kaunda, who is government's official spokesman, described "willy-nilly" injunctions as a disturbance in government operations.
"These injunctions," he said, ”The Attorney General must be present in injunction hearings."
Analysts fear that the Attorney General may choose to absent himself or herself from such hearings, while the victims suffer. For example, government can fire a public officer and, if he or she seeks court relief, the Attorney General may choose not to appear in court.
-0- PANA RT/BOS 20June2011
The ruling Democratic Progressive Party (DPP)-led Parliament last week passed what is officially called the Civil Procedure (suits by or against government or public officers) Act Amendment Bill - famously known as the "Injunctions Bill" - which the civil rights organisation views as a trick by government to stop citizens from challenging undemocratic actions of government.
The new bill effectively outlaws ex parte (one side) injunctions and insists that the Attorney General, the government legal counsel, must always be present when an injunction application is being held.
"An injunction is an interim relief by an aggrieved party," argued lawyer Wapona Kita representing the Human Rights Consultative Committee (HRCC) that applied the injunction on behalf of the Catholic Commission for Justice and Peace, the Church and Society of the Church of Central Africa Presbyterian (CCAP), the Centre for the Development of People (CEDEP) and the Centre for Human Rights and Rehabilitation (CHRR).
Presiding judge, Justice Ivy Kamanga, granted the injunction restraining Mutharika from assenting to the bill (turning it into law) and ordered a judicial review on the constitutionality of the proposed new law.
Kita, speaking outside the court, said this means the President's hands are tied. This means the bill is in suspense, the President cannot assent to it to make it into law."
The controversial bill has divided the country, with most analysts accusing the Mutharika administration of becoming increasingly autocratic by denying people from challenging its decision.
In a dramatic turn of events, even DPP Members of Parliament revolted and either outright rejected it or abstained from voting.
"This is a bad law," was the unequivocal verdict of DPP's Henry Dama Phoya, who is Chairman of the Parliamentary Legal Affairs Committee.
The former Justice Minister and Attorney General, a lawyer by profession, abstained from voting.
Over 10 DPP MPs also either abstained or voted it down.
Former Vice-President Cassim Chilumpha, himself a lawyer and member of the former ruling United Democratic Front (UDF), accused Mutharika and the DPP of seeking absolute power with the proposed new law.
"Government everywhere is already powerful and an ordinary human being cannot compete against it," he said, adding that "injunctions were the only protection citizens had against government's human rights abuses and taking it away is making government even more powerful, while making citizens vulnerable."
However, Information Minister Symon Vuwa Kaunda, who is government's official spokesman, described "willy-nilly" injunctions as a disturbance in government operations.
"These injunctions," he said, ”The Attorney General must be present in injunction hearings."
Analysts fear that the Attorney General may choose to absent himself or herself from such hearings, while the victims suffer. For example, government can fire a public officer and, if he or she seeks court relief, the Attorney General may choose not to appear in court.
-0- PANA RT/BOS 20June2011
