The Supreme Court of Appeal yesterday dismissed an appeal by Malawi Congress Party (MCP) secretary general Richard Chimwendo Banda, who was challenging his 90-day remand warrant. Justice Dorothy NyaKaunda Kamanga dismissed the appeal after the State raised preliminary objections on technical grounds, including questions surrounding the court’s jurisdiction. The Lilongwe Chief Resident Magistrate’s Court issued the 90-day remand order on December 15 2025, following the former Cabinet minister’s arrest three days earlier.
Chimwendo Banda appealed to the Supreme Court while awaiting a ruling on his bail application, which is before High Court judge Mzondi Mvula in Lilongwe. Mvula heard the bail application on December 24 2025, after receiving submissions from both the defence and the State. In her ruling, Justice NyaKaunda Kamanga held that the Supreme Court lacked jurisdiction because there was no competent appeal.
She emphasised that jurisdiction is a substantive legal cornerstone and not a mere technicality. The court further found that its criminal appellate jurisdiction is strictly limited to final decisions of the High Court, noting that the remand warrant in question was provisional and did not determine the ultimate rights of the parties. The court also observed that the legal concept of a “stay or suspension of execution” applies only to final judgments or sentences—such as a warrant of commitment after conviction—and does not extend to remand warrants.
[paywall]
“The applicant did not comply with Order I, Rule 18 of the Supreme Court of Appeal Rules, which requires a party to first seek a stay from the High Court before approaching the Supreme Court of Appeal,” said the judge. She added: “The applicant’s summons was premature and an abuse of the court’s process because there was no final decision from the High Court.” One of Chimwendo Banda’s lawyers, Khwima Mchizi, told journalists after the dismissal that the defence would return to the drawing board to assess whether justice would ultimately be served. He said the application before the highest court of the land should be understood as a protest application and nothing more.
“In some circumstances, the law exists to serve a purpose, and that purpose is to deliver justice. Our only concern is that a ruling has been pending for an unreasonably long time, and that is worrying,” said Mchizi. He added that the lower court was free to either deny or grant bail, provided proper reasons were given.
“Unfortunately, we are in a vacuum. Our client is effectively tied, with no ruling forthcoming,” he lamented.
[/paywall]
