VZCZCXRO3830
RR RUEHBZ RUEHDU RUEHJO RUEHMR RUEHRN
DE RUEHLG #0252/01 1230859
ZNR UUUUU ZZH
R 020859Z MAY 08
FM AMEMBASSY LILONGWE
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC 5221
INFO RUCNSAD/SOUTHERN AF DEVELOPMENT COMMUNITY COLLECTIVE
RUEHLMC/MILLENNIUM CHALLENGE CORPORATION WASHINGTON DC

UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 02 LILONGWE 000252 
 
SIPDIS 
 
SENSITIVE 
SIPDIS 
 
DEPT FOR AF/S - E. PELLETREAU 
 
E.O. 12958: N/A 
TAGS: PGOV KDEM MI
SUBJECT: MALAWI: OPPOSITION BOYCOTTS PARLIAMENT 
 
REF: LILONGWE 221 
 
LILONGWE 00000252  001.2 OF 002 
 
 
¶1. (SBU)  SUMMARY: The opposition Malawi Congress Party (MCP) 
and United Democratic Front (UDF) boycotted the opening of 
Malawi's National Assembly on April 28, refusing to attend 
the opening speech given by President Mutharika.  The boycott 
continued on day two of the session, with only 10 of the 110 
opposition MPs attending.  At the beginning of both sittings, 
MCP Chief Whip Bester Majoni, speaking for the opposition, 
cited both the Constitution and the Standing Orders of the 
National Assembly when he argued the Assembly did not have a 
quorum and should be adjourned.  Government argued that the 
doctrine of necessity, part of a 1995 court ruling that 
stated a boycott in the Assembly could not be used to block 
necessary business, should allow the Assembly to continue 
meeting.  On April 30, while opposition party leaders held a 
joint press conference, the Speaker concurred with the 
government's argument and said doctrine of necessity did 
allow for the National Assembly to meet without a quorum in 
the event of a majority boycott.   End Summary. 
 
Session Opens to Half Empty House 
--------------------------------- 
 
¶2. (U) On April 28, President Mutharika arrived to a 
half-empty National Assembly to officially open the 40th 
session of parliament.  Opposition MPs from the MCP, UDF, the 
Alliance for Democracy (AFORD), the Republican Party (RP), 
and several independents boycotted the sitting, leaving only 
six MPs on the opposition side of the house and 79 total in 
attendance.  Before Mutharika arrived to give his speech, MCP 
Chief Whip Bester Majoni stated that the National Assembly 
did not have a quorum of 92 members present and requested 
that the legislature be adjourned.  Speaker Louis Chimango 
denied the request and allowed the President to give his 
opening address. 
 
Mutharika Calls for Putting National Interest Ahead of 
Politics 
--------------------------------------------- --------- 
-------- 
 
¶3. (U) Mutharika told those assembled that "working together 
in diversity" was the hallmark of a mature democracy and 
called on MPs to "represent their constituents and promote 
their interests."  Mutharika continued to emphasize that 
parliament should put the needs of the country ahead of 
political squabbles, working through dialogue and not 
retribution.  Mutharika called the past impasse in parliament 
a disgrace to the nation and defended his dismissal of 
parliament last September as a direct result of the 
acrimonious conduct during the impasse.  Mutharika 
highlighted five bills needed to approve loans for 
infrastructure investment projects as examples of national 
development measures that he expected parliament to pass in 
the session.  Mutharika affirmed he was open to dialogue with 
the leaders of opposition parties if they were genuinely 
willing to seek mutual solutions in the national interest. 
 
Boycott Continued to Second Sitting and Beyond 
--------------------------------------------- - 
 
¶4. (SBU) On April 29, opposition MPs continued their boycott 
during the second sitting of the National Assembly, with only 
10 opposition and 66 government MPs present out of the 183 
members.  Majoni again began the sitting by raising the issue 
that a quorum was not present, and that according to both the 
constitution and the standing orders of the National Assembly 
the sitting should be adjourned.  After hearing an hour of 
debate on the subject, the Speaker allowed the sitting to 
continue, claiming he needed time to consult legal references 
on the matter.  After the Speaker's decision to continue, 
Majoni and his MCP and UDF supporters left the National 
Assembly.  On April 30, leaders of the MCP, UDF, and the 
Republican Party in the National Assembly called a press 
conference to explain their boycott, stating that the root 
issue was still the government's insistence to not allow 
implementation of Section 65.  Republican Party MP Steven 
Malamba was the most outspoken, claiming that the opposition 
must hold the government accountable to prevent backsliding 
into dictatorship. 
 
Opposition Points to the Constitution 
------------------------------------- 
 
¶5. (U) Majoni cited both Section 50 of the Malawi 
Constitution and Sections 26 and 27 of the Standing Orders of 
the National Assembly in making his argument that the lack of 
quorum required adjournment.  Both provisions clearly state 
 
LILONGWE 00000252  002.2 OF 002 
 
 
that if at least half plus one of the members of the Assembly 
excepting the person presiding are not present, then the 
Chair shall adjourn the Assembly without question until the 
next sitting day. 
 
1995 Court Ruling Supports Government 
------------------------------------- 
 
¶6. (U) Government MPs nevertheless offered up several 
arguments to contest the matter, however.  Government's main 
argument was based on the doctrine of necessity, which comes 
from a 1995 court ruling that challenged a bill passed in 
similar circumstances.  In that case, the MCP boycotted the 
session when a government bill was being pressed through the 
Assembly to divest Dr. Banda and the former single party (the 
MCP) of control over Press Trust. In that ruling, the Supreme 
Court stated that the Constitution had purposefully allowed 
for a government to have a minority in the National Assembly, 
and that an opposition majority boycott to deny quorum in the 
Assembly could not be used to block necessary government 
business.  During the second sitting, government MPs also 
brought up the issue of allowances, claiming that opposition 
MPs were still receiving their allowances and should either 
be counted toward quorum or else give back the money.  Henry 
Chimunthu Banda, the leader of government in the National 
Assembly, further argued that since only debate was scheduled 
and not a vote, a call for a quorum was unnecessary.  These 
arguments proved enough to sway the Speaker to review the 
issue further instead of adjourning, but Chimango also 
requested government and opposition leaders seek a negotiated 
solution. 
 
¶7. (U) On April 30, at the start of the third sitting of the 
session, Chimango announced that government's argument of the 
doctrine of necessity was valid and that the National 
Assembly would continue to meet despite the opposition 
boycott.  Ironically, Chimango was one of the named 
plaintiffs in the Press Trust suit and at that time took the 
opposite position. 
 
More of the Same 
---------------- 
 
¶8. (SBU) Comment:  The opposition vowed they would allow no 
legislative business before Section 65 when the President 
called for Parliament (reftel), and they have so far held 
true to their word.  The circumstances regarding the current 
boycott likely differ enough from the 1995 Press Trust case 
that MCP and UDF can take the matter to court for a new legal 
interpretation.  It remains to be seen whether the National 
Assembly will continue to sit and debate government business 
now that the Speaker has ruled on quorum, or if the GOM will 
use this new leverage to begin talks with the opposition. 
Some observers are asking whether bills to approve 
development loans that are passed during an opposition 
boycott would be recognized by organizations like the World 
Bank and African Development Bank.  While the President's 
opening speech asked for dialogue, his previous comments 
indicate he is unlikely to compromise if it means allowing 
implementation of Section 65.  Opposition leaders remain just 
as adamant about not compromising on the issue.  Though some 
in the media and civil society understand and support the 
opposition's rule of law arguments, Mutharika is betting 
again that the vast majority of the population in Malawi is 
unlikely to support sacrificing or delaying development 
loans, infrastructure projects, and agricultural subsidies 
for Section 65.  The Speaker's ruling on the "doctrine of 
necessity" strengthens the GOM's hand significantly -- 
essentially turning a minority government into a majority for 
the moment -- and may eventually force the opposition to 
modify its tactics. 
EASTHAM