Previous 16 / 142 Next

IZ 7. each polling station; 17.2. ballot papers for each polling station; 17.3. constituency Centres and Constituency Result Sheets; 17.4. District Results Centres and District Result Sheets. 17.5. Each Constituency Result Centre was allocated a unique bar code and Constituency results Sheets generated at each Constituency Tally Centre bore the Centre’s bar code Compilation and Aggregation of Results 18. THAT the results for each polling station are aggregated into one original Result Sheet which is signed by the Presiding Officer, who heads the polling station, and by leading election monitors from every political party’ participating in the elections. 19. THAT the original Result Sheet from each polling station is then physically taken by the Presiding Officer to the Constituency Tally Centre and each leading monitor from the participating political parties, is given a carbon copy ofthe original. Once the original Result Sheet has been submitted to the Presiding Officer heading the Constituency Tally Centre, the mandate of the officers at the polling station in relation to the Result Sheet terminates. 20. THAT the Constituency Tally Centre receives Results Sheets from all the polling stations within the constituency and quantitatively aggregates the said results to form one original result sheet for that constituency. The Constituency Result Sheet is then signed by the Presiding Officer at the Constituency Tally Centre and also by election monitors from all political 16

Select target paragraph3

● ● ●

Mutharika v. Chilima

Judgment

Question Presented: Whether the standard that candidate must receive a majority of the votes means the highest percentage of votes or over 50%?

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 lower court determined that the precedent from the Chakuamba case failed to rely on facts or precedent. Accordingly, the lower 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. 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. The appeal encompasses all aspects of the prior case.

Summary: The Supreme Court validated the Constitutional Court's invalidation of the May 2019 election. The court rejected the appeals stating that shift to a majority (plus one) was constitutional. The court criticized the grounds for appeal as fictitious.

Conclusion: Parliament has the power to set a time for new elections, not the Electoral Commission. The court may not extend the prior government.

Legal Issue(s)

Voting Systems (Winner-take-all, proportional, etc.)

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

Region: Africa

Country: Malawi

Language of Decision

English

Court: Supreme Court

Election Type: General

Date of decision: May 8, 2020

Geolocation

Latitude: -13.99301908

Longitude: 33.75071344

: Geolocation

Primary Documents

Prof Arthur Peter Mutharika and Electoral Commission Vs Dr Saulos K Chilima and Dr Lazarus M Chakwera MSCA Constitutional Appeal No 01 of 2020.pdf
English
Download View

Election Judgments - IFES

Select target paragraph3

Mutharika v. Chilima

Primary Documents

Notifications