By Suleman Chitera
Malawi is governed by three constitutional pillars: the Executive, Parliament, and the Judiciary. In theory, these arms balance one another, ensuring accountability, fairness, and the rule of law. In practice, two of them are periodically subjected to public judgment. Governments are voted out. Members of Parliament are rejected at the ballot box. Yet one arm remains permanently insulated from consequence, scrutiny, and renewal: the Judiciary.
This imbalance has bred a crisis—quiet, corrosive, and now impossible to ignore.
Across the country, from crowded townships to remote villages, a dangerous sentiment has taken root: justice in Malawi no longer belongs to the poor. Courts are increasingly viewed not as neutral arbiters of law, but as elite sanctuaries where influence speaks louder than evidence, and wealth weighs more than truth.
A Judiciary Without Consequence
Every five years, Malawians assess the Executive and Parliament. Failure is punished through democratic change. But judges—some accused of misconduct, incompetence, or ethical compromise—remain firmly in office for decades, shielded by opaque disciplinary processes and a culture of institutional silence.
The question many Malawians are now asking is uncomfortable but necessary: Why is the Judiciary the only arm of government that never faces renewal, despite mounting public mistrust?
Judicial independence was designed to protect judges from political interference—not to protect them from accountability. Yet in Malawi, independence has been stretched into impunity.
Justice for Sale?
Court corridors tell stories statistics never will. Poor litigants arrive with battered files and borrowed bus fare, only to watch cases delayed endlessly—sometimes for years. Meanwhile, high-profile suspects, politically connected individuals, and wealthy defendants glide through the system with astonishing speed, securing bail, injunctions, or dismissals that defy public logic.
Patterns have emerged:
- Selective speed in politically sensitive cases
- Contradictory rulings on similar legal questions
- Endless adjournments that exhaust poor litigants financially and emotionally
- Bail decisions that appear to favor status over circumstance
None of these alone prove corruption. Together, they form a troubling mosaic.
The Poor Locked Out
For the majority of Malawians, accessing justice is not merely difficult—it is humiliating. Legal fees are prohibitive. Language is alien. Procedures are intimidating. When outcomes repeatedly favor those with money and power, the message is clear: the courts are not for you.
This perception is deadly to democracy. When citizens stop believing in courts, they stop believing in law itself. Disputes move from courtrooms to streets. Anger replaces patience. Vigilante justice becomes tempting. Social cohesion fractures.
A judiciary that loses public confidence does not merely fail—it destabilizes the nation.
Silence From Within
Perhaps most disturbing is the Judiciary’s response to public concern: silence. Legitimate criticism is often dismissed as “attacks on judicial independence.” Whistleblowers within the system rarely speak, fearing career destruction. Judicial review mechanisms exist on paper but are sluggish, inaccessible, and largely unknown to the public.
Independence without transparency is not independence. It is isolation.
The Radical Question
If the Executive and Parliament can be dissolved after a defined term, should the Judiciary remain untouched forever—regardless of performance?
This is no longer a fringe question. It is now a national debate.
Calls for judicial reform are not calls for mob justice or political capture of the courts. They are demands for:
- Fixed renewable terms for senior judges
- Transparent performance reviews
- Publicly accessible disciplinary processes
- Clear asset declaration and lifestyle audits
- Equal treatment before the law, regardless of status
These are not radical ideas. They are democratic safeguards.
A Choice Before Us
Malawi stands at a crossroads. One path leads to continued erosion of trust, where courts become irrelevant to the poor and convenient to the powerful. The other path is difficult but necessary: reforming the Judiciary to restore credibility, fairness, and public confidence.
Justice must not only be done—it must be seen to be done.
If the Judiciary cannot convincingly serve the poorest Malawian with the same urgency and integrity it serves the richest, then it has failed its constitutional mandate.
And when justice fails the poor, the entire nation eventually pays the price.
