Court Vindicates Mulli After 14-Year Battle, Declares Govt Blacklisting Malicious and Illegal

Malawian businessman Leston Mulli has secured a significant victory in the High Court, which ruled that a 2012 government directive blacklisting him and his companies was malicious, illegal, and lacked any legal basis. After a 14-year legal battle, Justice Allan Hans Muhome found that the directive, issued by the then Attorney General, was an abuse of public authority, driven by bad faith and targeted malice, and violated Mulli's constitutional right to fair administrative action. The judgment underscores the judiciary's role in holding the executive accountable and reinforces the principles of legality, procedural fairness, and the rule of law in Malawi's administrative justice system, opening the door for substantial damages.

In a landmark judgment delivered on June 22, 2026, the High Court of Malawi brought an end to a 14-year legal saga, vindicating businessman Leston Mulli and his companies against a government blacklisting directive. Justice Allan Hans Muhome's ruling declared the 2012 decision to bar Mulli from government contracts as unlawful, malicious, and entirely without legal foundation. This decision sends a powerful message about the limits of executive power and the imperative of adherence to constitutional principles in administrative action.

The case, *Leston Mulli and Others v. The Government of Malawi*, has been closely watched as a test of the State's accountability and the robustness of administrative justice in the country. The High Court's findings of targeted malice and a complete absence of due process highlight critical vulnerabilities in government decision-making processes, particularly concerning procurement and the treatment of private entities. This article will delve into the legal underpinnings of the judgment, examining its implications for administrative law, public procurement, and the broader rule of law in Malawi.

The core of the High Court's decision rests on the principles of legality, procedural fairness, and the prohibition against abuse of power, as enshrined in the Malawian Constitution. By meticulously dissecting the origins and execution of the 2012 blacklisting, the court has reaffirmed that public power must be exercised within the confines of the law and for proper purposes, not for ulterior motives or personal vendettas.

Administrative action in Malawi is primarily governed by the Constitution of the Republic of Malawi, particularly Section 43, which guarantees every person the right to lawful and procedurally fair administrative action. This right extends to situations where an individual's rights, freedoms, legitimate expectations, or interests are affected or threatened, and also mandates that reasons be furnished in writing for such actions. These constitutional provisions significantly expand upon the common law principles of natural justice, such as the right to be heard (*audi alteram partem*) and the rule against bias (*nemo judex in causa sua*), by introducing a broader requirement for justification and procedural fairness.

Government procurement and the debarment of suppliers are specifically regulated by the Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets Act (No. 7 of 2025, and its predecessors). This Act establishes the Public Procurement and Disposal of Assets Authority (PPDA) with powers to suspend or debar bidders, suppliers, contractors, or consultants who contravene the law, following thorough investigations and affording the affected parties an opportunity to be heard. Such debarment decisions are subject to appeal to the High Court, ensuring a layer of judicial oversight.

However, the 2012 blacklisting of Leston Mulli and his companies did not originate from a formal PPDA process. Instead, it was a directive issued by the then Attorney General and Minister of Justice and Constitutional Affairs, Ralph Kasambara, SC. This distinction is crucial, as the Attorney General's office, while a public authority, must also operate within its statutory and constitutional bounds. The case therefore tested whether a high-ranking public official could issue such a sweeping directive without adhering to the established legal frameworks for debarment or the fundamental tenets of administrative justice.

Justice Allan Hans Muhome's judgment meticulously dismantled the government's 2012 blacklisting directive, finding it to be fundamentally flawed on multiple grounds. The court held that the directive, which barred government ministries, departments, and agencies from doing business with Mulli and his Zao Marketing companies, was issued without any legal basis. This finding of illegality is central, as public officials are only empowered to act within the authority conferred upon them by law. An action taken without such authority is *ultra vires* and void.

Crucially, the High Court found that the decision was made in bad faith and with targeted malice. Justice Muhome noted that Mulli and his companies were unfairly singled out, while other government contractors facing similar allegations were left untouched. The absence of any lawful justification for the directive, coupled with the selective targeting, led the court to conclude that the action was motivated by an improper purpose. This speaks directly to the administrative law principle that discretionary powers must be exercised for the purpose for which they were granted, and not for ulterior or malicious ends.

Furthermore, the judgment highlighted a severe breach of natural justice and procedural fairness. Mulli and his companies were never afforded an opportunity to be heard before the blacklisting was imposed, despite serious allegations of money laundering, corruption, and tax evasion. This contravenes Section 43 of the Malawian Constitution, which guarantees the right to procedurally fair administrative action and the right to be furnished with reasons. The court emphasized that even in cases involving serious accusations, due process cannot be bypassed. The failure to provide reasons or an opportunity to respond rendered the administrative action unjustifiable and unlawful.

The court's decision to question not only the legality of the ban but also the broader culture of political decision-making that allowed such an order to be issued without due process is significant. It reinforces the constitutional supremacy in Malawi, where all public power, including that of the Attorney General, must conform to the Constitution. The ruling also opens the door for a potentially substantial compensation bill, with the court directing that damages for losses directly linked to the ban be assessed if the parties fail to agree on a figure.

The High Court's vindication of Leston Mulli after a 14-year battle marks a pivotal moment for administrative justice and the rule of law in Malawi. The judgment unequivocally asserts that executive power is not absolute and must be exercised within the strict confines of the law, free from malice and with unwavering adherence to principles of fairness and due process. For legal practitioners, this case serves as a powerful precedent, reinforcing the grounds for challenging administrative decisions where there is evidence of illegality, bad faith, or a failure to observe natural justice. It underscores the importance of Section 43 of the Constitution as a robust safeguard against arbitrary state action.

Practitioners advising clients facing government blacklisting or other adverse administrative actions should meticulously examine the legal basis of such decisions, the procedural steps followed, and any evidence of improper motive. The *Mulli* judgment highlights that even directives from high-ranking officials are not immune from judicial scrutiny and can be overturned if they lack statutory authority or violate constitutional rights. The impending assessment of damages will also be a critical development to watch, as it will quantify the financial cost of executive overreach and potentially set a benchmark for future compensation claims arising from unlawful administrative actions. This ruling firmly reminds all public officials of their duty to act lawfully, reasonably, and fairly, ensuring accountability and strengthening democratic governance in Malawi.