Previous 31 / 418 Next

(Receipt should be in triplicate—one copy for each party involved in transfer of ballot papers and a copy for the Electoral Commission) The Ballot papers listed hereunder were on .....(date) ..... at(time) transferred from: ................................................................................ (Name and title of person handing over ballot papers) to: ........................................................................................ (Name and title of person receiving ballot papers) BALLOT PAPERS NUMBERED FROM ................................................... TO .................................... TOTAL NUMBER (QUANTITY) OF BALLOT PAPERS .................................................. .................................................. (Signature of person handing over ballot papers) (Signature of person receiving ballot papers) 67. Section 94 of the PPEA requires the presiding officer of a polling station to quickly deliver (with all dispatch) to the office of the District Commissioner of his or her district, under conditions of absolute security against loss, tampering or interference, the following: “(a) the record prepared under section 93; (b) all the ballot papers collected in separate lots corresponding to the classification under which they were counted; (c) all unused ballot papers; and (d) all voters registers and other work items provided to that polling station.” 68. In other words, this Court opines, the presiding officer must deliver all the polling materials to the duly designated returning officer at the office of the District Commissioner for purposes of preparation of the district record under section 95 of the Act. Section 95 of the PPEA is in the following terms: 31

Select target paragraph3

● ● ●

Chilima v. Mutharika (lower court decision)

Judgment

Question Presented: Whether the Electoral Commission breach its duty under section 76, 77, and 40 of the Constitution of Malawi. These duties include ensuring the absence of electoral irregularities, illegalities, and failed provide proper oversight and verification.

Alleged Acts: During the May 2019 election Presidential candidate Mutharika obtained 38.57% of the vote, Chilima obtained 20.24%, and Chakwera obtained 35.41% of the vote. No single individual one over 50% of the vote. The petitioners allege that the election winner must have ascertained over 50% of the vote.

Procedural history: The court consolidated two complaints and referred the case to the Chief Justice. In a previous decision entitled Chakuamba, the court determined that a majority requirement was satisfied by a first-past-the-post system.

Summary: The court determined that the precedent from the Chakuamba case failed to rely on facts or precedent. Accordingly, the court modified this standard and determined that the majority meant 50% or more of the vote in compliance with the rest of the Malawi constitution. The court further looked to the Black's Law Dictionary definition for majority and determined that the first-past-the-post system was inconsistent with the term majority as set forth.

Conclusion: The President of Malawi was not duly elected and the new election must be held in accordance with the PPEA. The May 2019 election is declared nullified. In order to ascertain the presidency, the candidate must have more than 50% of the vote, rather than the previous plurality requirement.

Legal Issue(s)

Disputing Results
Electoral Integrity
EMB Operation

Applicable Law(s): Malawi Const. 41, 43, 67, 80.

Region: Africa

Country: Malawi

Language of Decision

English

Court: Supreme Court

Election Type: Presidential

Date of decision: Feb 3, 2020

Geolocation

Latitude: -13.993019080150052

Longitude: 33.750713444775464

: Geolocation

Primary Documents

Chilima v. Mutharika.pdf
English
Download View

Election Judgments - IFES

Select target paragraph3

Chilima v. Mutharika (lower court decision)

Primary Documents

Notifications