Allan Ntata: Malawi's Norman Chisale Whipping Threat Deemed Unfit

• Malawi's Deputy Minister of Homeland Security, Norman Chisale, reportedly threatened to "whip" opposition UTM party members for campaigning.
• Prominent lawyer Allan Ntata criticized Chisale, arguing his remarks demonstrate constitutional unfitness for office.
• Ntata highlighted that campaigning is a constitutional right under Sections 39 and 40 of Malawi's constitution.
• The lawyer stressed the 'constitutional irony' of a security minister threatening political freedoms he is sworn to protect.
• Neither Minister Chisale nor his ministry had publicly responded to the allegations at the time of reporting.

The situation, as articulated by Ntata, presents a profound constitutional irony where the very governmental machinery mandated to protect political freedoms is implicated in threatening them.

A senior Malawian government official, Norman Chisale, who holds the portfolio of Deputy Minister of Homeland Security with responsibility for Operations, stands accused of issuing severe threats against political opponents, raising concerns about UTM party intimidation Malawi. Reports indicate that Minister Chisale warned members of the opposition UTM party, stating, "we are about to start whipping people" should they persist in "moving from place to place" for campaign activities. These alarming remarks, which reportedly included seeking the endorsement of traditional chiefs for such a crackdown, have sparked widespread condemnation.

Legal experts have quickly weighed in, suggesting that these statements render Deputy Minister Chisale constitutionally unfit for his public office. Among the most vocal critics is prominent lawyer Allan Ntata, a former legal aide to the late President Bingu wa Mutharika. Writing on his Facebook page, Ntata launched a blistering critique, asserting that the minister appears to have conflated his partisan role with his official constitutional duties.

Allan Ntata’s analysis highlights a significant 'constitutional irony' in Malawi. He underscored that members of the UTM party engaging in campaign travel are not violating any laws; rather, they are exercising fundamental rights enshrined within Malawi's constitution. Specifically, Malawi Section 39 freedom of movement guarantees citizens this right, while Malawi Section 40 political rights protects their ability to join political parties and participate in peaceful political activities.

The lawyer pointed out the stark contradiction: the Ministry of Homeland Security, whose security apparatus is constitutionally obligated to safeguard opposition politicians as they exercise these very freedoms, now has its Deputy Minister publicly threatening to "whip" them for doing so. Ntata questioned whether Norman Chisale fully comprehends the crucial distinction between his responsibilities as a party operative and his solemn obligations as a government official. He further noted that the constitution explicitly prohibits both the government and political parties from directing police to favor or undermine any specific party, mandating officers to protect all citizens "without fear or favour."

Ntata argued that a Homeland Security Minister occupies a critical governmental position, constitutionally required to mediate between political disagreement and political intimidation. He emphatically stated that such a minister "cannot simultaneously become its source." The lawyer drew a sharp distinction: while an ordinary party operative threatening violence constitutes "political thuggery," the same words emanating from a minister overseeing homeland security operations raise a far graver concern. This situation, Ntata contended, directly questions whether the individual tasked with safeguarding political freedom is instead actively threatening it.

The implications of these Malawi Deputy Minister Homeland Security threats extend beyond mere political rhetoric, challenging Norman Chisale's constitutional fitness and adherence to democratic principles. Ntata issued a solemn warning, reminding the nation that "Malawi has travelled this road before," urging recognition of these "signposts." He concluded his message with a direct address to the minister: "Hon. Chisale, Homeland Security is supposed to protect political freedom; not threaten to whip it." At the time of the original report, neither Minister Chisale nor the Ministry of Homeland Security had offered a response to these serious allegations.

This development highlights a significant challenge to a Malawian Deputy Minister's constitutional fitness and adherence to rule of law. Lawyers should be aware of this public discourse as it sets a precedent for scrutinizing ministerial conduct against constitutional principles, potentially informing advice to clients on their rights to political activity and freedom of movement, or grounds for challenging government overreach.

Source: Original reporting via Nyasa Times