By Suleman Chitera
Growing public concern is emerging over what critics describe as the selective application of court injunctions in Malawi—where legal protection appears to be swiftly granted to politically connected individuals, while alleged violent offenders are repeatedly re-arrested or subjected to prolonged police harassment without trial.
Legal experts, civil rights activists, and members of the public are questioning why court injunctions in Malawi are seemingly used only in limited circumstances, often benefiting elites, while ordinary suspects—some accused of non-violent offences—face repeated arrests, intimidation, and delayed justice.
Injunctions for the Powerful, Fear for the Powerless?
An injunction is a lawful court order meant to prevent abuse of power or protect constitutional rights. However, observers say its application in Malawi has increasingly raised eyebrows.
“Injunctions are meant to protect citizens from unlawful actions, not to shield the powerful while the rest are terrorized through re-arrests and prolonged detention,” said one senior legal practitioner who requested anonymity for fear of professional repercussions.
Several recent cases have highlighted a pattern where politically exposed individuals secure court injunctions that block arrest or prosecution, while alleged violent offenders—described by communities as dangerous thugs—continue to roam freely, or are arrested only to be released without explanation.
Cycle of Arrests Without Closure
At the same time, police are accused of repeatedly re-arresting the same suspects, sometimes immediately after they are granted bail by the courts.
Human rights groups argue that this practice amounts to harassment and intimidation rather than law enforcement.
“This is not justice; it is punishment without conviction,” said a representative from a local civil liberties organisation. “If someone has a case to answer, let it go to trial. If not, stop re-arresting people to instill fear.”
Where Are the Trials?
Another troubling issue is the growing number of high-profile cases that never reach trial. Files disappear, investigations stall, or suspects are quietly released—raising questions about political interference and institutional weakness.
Ironically, Malawi’s courts are often efficient when it comes to granting injunctions, but painfully slow when it comes to concluding criminal trials that would deliver justice to victims.
Public Confidence at Stake
Legal analysts warn that continued selective justice risks eroding public trust in both the judiciary and law enforcement agencies.
“When citizens begin to believe that courts exist only to serve the powerful, the rule of law collapses,” said a governance expert from Lilongwe. “Justice must not only be done; it must be seen to be done.”
Calls for Reform and Accountability
Civil society organisations are now calling for:
Transparent guidelines on the issuance of injunctions
Judicial review of repeated re-arrests
Timely prosecution of violent and serious crimes
Protection of suspects’ constitutional rights regardless of political affiliation
As Malawi approaches another critical political period, the pressure is mounting on the judiciary and law enforcement agencies to demonstrate independence, fairness, and commitment to justice for all—not just a privileged few.
Until then, the question lingers: Are Malawi’s courts instruments of justice, or shields for selective power?
