By Burnett Munthali
The High Court of Malawi has dismissed a case challenging a proposed bill that seeks to bar individuals over the age of 80 from contesting for the presidency. The court ruled that the lawsuit, brought by Member of Parliament Mary Thom Navicha against the Speaker of the National Assembly, was improperly filed.
Navicha had sought an injunction to prevent Parliament from debating and passing the bill, arguing that the proposed law was unconstitutional. She contended that it violated the fundamental right of every Malawian to seek elective office and that it contradicted constitutional provisions against discrimination. According to her, the bill’s intent was politically motivated, aimed at sidelining certain politicians from the 2025 general elections.
However, in his ruling, Justice Kenyatta Nyirenda dismissed the case on procedural grounds, stating that it should have been filed as a judicial review rather than an ordinary civil suit. He pointed out that challenges against public bodies regarding constitutional or administrative matters must follow the judicial review process, as stipulated in Order 19 of the Courts (High Court) (Civil Procedure) Rules, 2017.
“There can be no doubt in my mind that the present case ought to have been brought by way of judicial review,” Justice Nyirenda stated, citing legal precedents that require constitutional challenges against public bodies to be filed through the correct legal process.
Navicha had argued that the bill, set to be introduced as a private member’s bill, was being fast-tracked to block specific individuals from contesting in the September 16, 2025, general elections. She maintained that the legislation directly violated Sections 20 and 40(3) of the Constitution, which guarantee citizens’ protection against discrimination and affirm their right to participate in elections.
Despite her concerns, the court upheld that the case could not proceed in its current form. Justice Nyirenda emphasized that improperly filed cases are subject to dismissal and reiterated the importance of following proper legal channels. “If a person commences an ordinary action where they should have applied for judicial review, the action will be struck out by summary process,” he ruled.
The dismissal of the case means that Parliament can proceed with discussions on the proposed bill. However, the ruling does not address the substantive constitutional issues raised by Navicha, leaving open the possibility of a future legal challenge if filed correctly. The outcome of this case highlights the legal hurdles that opposition to the bill may face and sets a precedent for how similar constitutional challenges should be handled in Malawian courts.
