Lawyers question APM’s power to postpone Parliament

The Malawi Law Society (MLS) has questioned the constitutionality of President Peter Mutharika’s directive to postpone the Fourth Meeting of the 52nd Session of Parliament, arguing that the President has no legal authority to direct the Speaker to suspend a parliamentary sitting.

In a statement issued yesterday, the society said Section 59(1) of the Constitution does not empower the President to direct the Speaker of the National Assembly on whether or when Parliament should meet.

“The society observes that Section 59(1) of the Constitution does not grant the President powers to direct the Speaker to do or not to do a thing,” reads the statement signed

by chairperson Davis Njobvu and honorary secretary Francis M’mame.

Co-signed the statement: Njobvu (L) and Mmame |

Nation

The society said the provision only empowers the President, in consultation with the Speaker, to summon an extraordinary meeting of the National Assembly and to prorogue Parliament.

It added that the President’s directive was therefore beyond his constitutional authority.

“To the extent that the President has exercised a power that he does not have under the Constitution or any other law, such a decision is ultra vires, illegal and unconstitutional,” the statement reads.

The controversy follows a letter dated October 23 2026, in which Mutharika directed Speaker Sameer Suleman to postpone the meeting until the next Budget Meeting to allow resources to be redirected towards addressing El Niño and fuel-related challenges.

“By virtue of the provision under Section 59(1) of the Constitution of the Republic of Malawi, I direct that the Fourth Meeting of the 52nd Session of Parliament be postponed until the next Budget Meeting,” reads the letter.

Parliament was scheduled to begin its Mid-Year Budget Review Meeting on November 9.

The postponement comes amid growing tensions between the Executive and Legislature following Suleman’s decision to establish 12 ad hoc parliamentary committees to investigate issues affecting Malawians.

In a report published on October 25, The Nation highlighted concerns that the standoff could distract Parliament from pressing national issues, including budget adjustments and other legislative business.

The Mid-Year Budget Review is particularly important as it provides an opportunity for government to assess budget implementation and adjust allocations in response to prevailing economic conditions.

On October 28, Suleman announced the postponement in a press release but did not explain the reasons behind the decision.

The law society has expressed concern that the Speaker complied with the President’s directive, arguing that such compliance undermines the constitutional separation of powers.

It cited Sections 7, 8 and 9 of the Constitution, which establish the Executive, Legislature and Judiciary as separate arms of government, each expected to exercise its powers independently.

“Such separate status of these three arms of government requires that each arm performs its own role, and, critically, that no arm directs or dominates another,” reads the statement.

It added: “A separation that leaves one arm subordinate to another is separation in name only.”

The society further reminded both the President and the Speaker that their respective offices derive their authority from the people and that their powers must be exercised in trust for the public.

“Such power can only be exercised to the extent of their lawful authority and in accordance with their responsibilities to the people of Malawi,” the statement reads.

It urged Suleman to reconsider the postponement, noting that he had already consulted the President, set a date for the meeting and caused it to be published in the Government Gazette.

The society warned that the postponement would deprive Parliament of an opportunity to scrutinise the performance of ministries, departments and agencies and consider proposed adjustments to the national budget.

It also observed that government institutions cannot lawfully spend beyond the funds appropriated by Parliament during the previous sitting.

“While the society acknowledges the need to be prudent with the use of public resources, any decisions made to protect or preserve such public resources should have a sound basis in law,” the statement reads.

However, the Constitution does not prescribe a maximum period for postponing a parliamentary meeting or specify circumstances under which postponement is permissible or prohibited. Section 59(2) requires Parliament to hold at least three meetings during each session.

When asked to comment on the MLS statement, the Attorney General requested a copy of the statement, but he had not responded by press time

The post Lawyers question APM’s power to postpone Parliament appeared first on Nation Online.