By Burnett Munthali
In February 2020, Malawi’s High Court made history by nullifying the results of the May 2019 presidential election and ordering a fresh poll.
This monumental decision was later upheld by the Malawi Supreme Court of Appeal, cementing its place as one of the most consequential legal rulings in the country’s democratic history.
The case was unprecedented in Africa, as it was only the second time a court had annulled a presidential election on the continent.
It also led to another historic first: the rerun was won by an opposition candidate, reshaping Malawi’s political landscape and sparking global attention.
Legal scholars have noted that the judgments broke new ground in Malawi’s electoral jurisprudence, influencing how electoral disputes might be handled in the future.
However, the rulings also split opinion within legal and political circles, with some hailing them as a triumph for democracy and others questioning the robustness of the court’s reasoning.
A key point of contention was the court’s handling of the burden and standard of proof in electoral disputes, which some critics argued set a precedent that could lower the threshold for challenging election outcomes.
The interpretation of “majority” to mean 50% + 1 was another groundbreaking element of the decision, fundamentally altering Malawi’s electoral system and requiring future presidential winners to secure an absolute majority.
The nullification also raised complex transitional issues, including questions about governance during the period between the annulled election and the fresh polls.
While the outcome of the litigation attracted international praise for strengthening democratic accountability, scholars such as Mwiza Jo Nkhata, Anganile Willie Mwenifumbo, and Alfred Majamanda have argued that the reasoning behind the judgments was not entirely persuasive.
This critical debate has left an enduring question for Malawi: was the 2019 election nullification a bold act of judicial independence safeguarding democracy, or did it risk being seen as a judicial coup d’état with far-reaching political consequences?
