Mwaungulu questions Attorney General's Parliament case intervention
Former judge Dunstan Mwaungulu says the Attorney General's move into a Parliament legal case lacks instruction from the institution.
Former Court of Appeal judge Dunstan Mwaungulu has questioned the Attorney General's intervention in a court case involving Parliament. The dispute centres on disagreement between the Attorney General and Speaker of the National Assembly, Sameer Suleman, over who should represent Parliament. Mwaungulu stated that reports of the Attorney General replacing Parliament's lawyers are hard to reconcile with the Speaker's public statements.
Mwaungulu argued that while the Constitution names the Attorney General as the government's principal legal adviser, cases involving public offices are governed by the Suits by and Against Government and Public Officers Act. Under this law, Parliament had already retained lawyers, and they remain on record unless Parliament authorises a change. "You do not change lawyers by force or by your position," Mwaungulu wrote, adding that the litigant, Parliament, must instruct any change.
He questioned how the Attorney General could take over the case without instructions from Parliament. Available information suggests Parliament neither started nor agreed to the move. Mwaungulu believes this situation exposes deeper tensions over institutional independence.
Why it mattersFormer judge Dunstan Mwaungulu has raised concerns about the Attorney General's actions in a court case involving Malawi's Parliament, highlighting potential issues with institutional independence.