Malawi attorney general and law society clash over parliament delay
The Attorney General and Malawi Law Society interpret the same constitutional clause differently regarding the president's decision.
Attorney General Frank Mbeta and the Malawi Law Society (MLS) disagree on the legality of President Peter Mutharika's decision to postpone Parliament. The dispute centres on Section 59(1) of the Constitution, with both sides using the same provision to support their opposing views. The postponement moved the parliamentary session from November 9 to December 11.
Speaker of the National Assembly Sameer Suleman has sided with the President, stating Parliament will not challenge the postponement. Suleman indicated that he has taken no action against the President's directive. He advised listening to the President's reasoning.
The Attorney General's office and the MLS have conflicting interpretations of the constitutional provision. The President's decision to delay the parliamentary sitting has created this legal divergence.
Why it mattersMalawi's Attorney General and the Law Society have differing interpretations of the constitution regarding the postponement of Parliament, affecting the legislative process.