VZCZCXRO9734
RR RUEHDU RUEHJO RUEHMR
DE RUEHLG #0163 0471702
ZNR UUUUU ZZH
R 161702Z FEB 06
FM AMEMBASSY LILONGWE
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC 2393
INFO RUCNSAD/SOUTHERN AFRICAN DEVELOPMENT COMMUNITY
RUEAIIA/CIA WASHDC
RUEHLMC/MILLENNIUM CHALLENGE CORPORATION WASHDC

UNCLAS LILONGWE 000163 
 
SIPDIS 
 
SENSITIVE 
SIPDIS 
 
STATE FOR AF/S GABRIELLE MALLORY 
STATE FOR INR/AA 
 
E.O. 12958: N/A 
TAGS: PGOV KDEM KCOR MI
SUBJECT: GOVERNMENT DEFIES COURT ORDER TO REINSTATE VP 
 
REF: A. LILONGWE 133 
 
     ¶B. LILONGWE 137 
 
¶1. (SBU) Summary: Government continues to ignore a court 
injunction against the dismissal of Vice President Cassim 
Chilumpha, and has withdrawn his security detail, staff and 
vehicles.  For his part, Chilumpha announced on February 15 
he plans to sue the Attorney General for contempt of court. 
The refusal of President Mutharika's government to follow 
the court order has deepened the current constitutional 
crisis (reftel A), and sets a dangerous precedent for 
Presidential power. End Summary. 
 
¶2. (SBU)  According to one source, during a recent cabinet 
meeting the President announced that unspecified health 
problems would soon keep him out of the country for a limited 
time.  Mutharika told the cabinet that he didn't want 
Chilumpha, with whom he had publicly feuded, to take over 
while he was away.  After the cabinet meeting Mutharika and 
his 'inner circle', which includes the Attorney General, 
decided to put forward the claim that Chilumpha had 
effectively resigned (reftel A).  President Mutharika then 
announced on February 9 Chilumpha's "constructive" 
resignation, and declared that he was accepting the 
resignation. 
 
¶3. (SBU) This clearly unconstitutional move was immediately 
challenged by the VP, who obtained a court injunction against 
his dismissal on February 10.  However the Attorney General, 
disingenuously claiming that the injunction never specified 
the VP should remain in his office, removed the trappings of 
the vice presidency--including security detail and civil 
servant staff--from Chilumpha. 
 
¶4. (SBU) The High Court quickly followed up with a 
'clarification' on February 12 that Chilumpha should maintain 
his office, and specifically that government could not remove 
his security, staff, vehicles or pay. However, the Attorney 
General has refused to reinstate Chilumpha's entitlements, 
and repeatedly claimed that he has never been officially 
served with the 'clarification'. 
 
¶5. (SBU) For their part, civil society organizations have 
largely come out against the VP's dismissal. The influential 
Public Affairs Committee and the Muslim Association of Malawi 
(MAM) have both condemned Chilumpha's removal as 
unconstitutional.  Chilumpha is a Muslim and loyalist of the 
United Democratic Front, the Muslim-dominated party of former 
President Bakili Muluzi.  MAM's Secretary General has gone as 
far as to call it as an "attempt to marginalise Muslims," in 
local media.  A MAM march in part to support the VP is 
scheduled for February 17 in Lilongwe. 
 
¶6. (SBU) Comment: The President's decision to unilaterally 
dispose of the VP will be examined by a constitutional 
review, which is scheduled to take place within the next two 
weeks.  However, perhaps the most troubling part of the 
entire ordeal has been the Attorney General's failure to 
comply with the High Court injunction.  While Malawi's court 
system is often slow to act, it is generally respected both 
by the public and by politicians.  This is precisely what 
makes the Government's defiance of the High Court ruling in 
this case such a dangerous precedent.  The President seems 
intent on doing away with Chilumpha; however it still looks 
very unlikely that the courts would side with Mutharika on 
his interpretation of the VP's "resignation".  It remains to 
be seen what the President will do if the courts rule that 
his dismissal of Chilumpha is unconstitutional. 
CLOUD