Enough is Enough: Mutharika Culture of Impunity Must End 

There are moments in a nation’s life when the issue is no longer about politics, personalities or party loyalties. It is about whether the Constitution still means what it says.

Monday’s Cabinet meeting was one such moment.

President Arthur Peter Mutharika, an 86-year-old constitutional lawyer trained at Yale University, chose to bypass First Vice President Jane Ansah and instead delegated Second Vice President Enoch Chihana to chair a full Cabinet meeting in Lilongwe while he remained in Blantyre. The government has offered no constitutional justification beyond saying the President remains in charge.

That explanation is not enough.

The Constitution is not a menu from which a president picks convenient provisions. It is the supreme law of the Republic. Section 92(3) establishes a clear order for chairing Cabinet meetings. The President chairs. In his temporary absence, the First Vice President takes over. Only when both are unavailable does the Second Vice President assume that responsibility.

The language is deliberate because constitutions exist precisely to prevent arbitrary exercise of power.

If the President can simply ignore the constitutional line of succession because it suits him politically, then what stops any future president from ignoring any other constitutional provision? Today it is the order of who chairs Cabinet. Tomorrow it could be appointments, dismissals, elections or judicial decisions.

That is how constitutional democracies die,not always through coups, but through the gradual normalization of illegal shortcuts.

What makes this episode particularly disturbing is that Mutharika is no constitutional novice. He built an international academic career teaching constitutional and comparative law. He knows the importance of constitutional procedure. That raises an uncomfortable question: if someone with such legal training chooses to disregard a constitutional hierarchy, what message does that send to the rest of government?

Even more troubling is the conduct of those surrounding him.

If President Mutharika is genuinely unable to personally discharge certain responsibilities because of his advanced age or health, then those around him have a constitutional duty to ensure that lawful procedures are followed not invent alternative arrangements that undermine the Constitution

Age is not a crime. Ill health is not a crime. But using either circumstance to justify bending constitutional rules is unacceptable.

Those who claim to protect the President are, in reality, exposing him to allegations of constitutional misconduct. Rather than preserving his legacy, they are risking tarnishing it by creating unnecessary constitutional controversies where none should exist.

This culture of impunity has become deeply corrosive. It rests on a dangerous assumption that those in power are above the law, that constitutional provisions are optional, and that political convenience overrides legal obligation.

It does not.

Malawi ceased to be governed by presidential discretion in 1994. We became a constitutional democracy governed by law. Every public office holder, from the President downwards, derives authority from the Constitution not above it.

The Constitution was deliberately written to remove ambiguity from executive authority. It provides succession mechanisms so that government continues lawfully even when the President is unavailable. Ignoring those mechanisms defeats the very purpose for which they exist.

This is bigger than Jane Ansah. It is bigger than Enoch Chihana. It is even bigger than Arthur Peter Mutharika.

It is about whether Malawi remains a Republic governed by constitutional order or slides toward a system where personal preference replaces legal obligation.

No democracy can survive if constitutional provisions become suggestions rather than commands.

The Democratic Progressive Party must resist the temptation to defend every executive action simply because it comes from its leader. Loyalty to a political party can never supersede loyalty to the Constitution. Defending an unconstitutional act does not strengthen democracy; it weakens it.

If President Mutharika is fit to govern, he must govern within the confines of the Constitution he once taught. If he is not fit to personally execute the full demands of the office, then those around him should faithfully apply the constitutional mechanisms already provided instead of manufacturing extra-constitutional arrangements.

Malawi deserves certainty. Malawi deserves constitutional discipline. Malawi deserves leaders who obey the law they swore to uphold.

We are a nation governed by laws not personalities, political convenience or presidential preference.

And certainly not a banana republic where constitutional order bends to the wishes of those in power.