Private citizen Jones Yamikani Chadza says his decision to join a judicial review case involving Parliament’s investigative powers is driven by concerns over accountability, transparency and the proper exercise of public power.
Chadza was on Thursday allowed by High Court Judge Allan Muhome to join Judicial Review Cause No. 030 of 2026 as an interested party.
The case concerns an interim injunction obtained by concerned citizen Austin Mkoka which has halted Speaker of Parliament Sameer Suleman from instituting 12 joint committees to probe government departments and institutions.
In an interview following the court’s decision, Chadza, who is based in South Africa, said his participation was motivated by his interest as a Malawian citizen in public administration and accountability.
“My application arises from my continuing interest, as a Malawian citizen, in public administration, transparency, accountability and the proper exercise of public functions,” he said.
Chadza said he was particularly concerned about the breadth and practical effect of the interim court order, which extends beyond the specifically identified institutions to “any other government department, Ministry or Agency.”
He, however, stressed that he respects the court order and has no intention of encouraging its violation.
“The order remains binding unless it is varied, discharged or set aside by a competent court. I have never sought to encourage its disregard or disobedience,” Chadza said.
He said his intervention should not be viewed as an attack on the Judiciary or any party to the proceedings.
“My participation is therefore not based merely on disagreement with the claimant, nor is it an attack on the Judiciary or any party,” he said.
Instead, Chadza said he intends to present what he described as a distinct public-interest perspective on the effect of the injunction on Parliament’s constitutional oversight responsibilities.
He argued that parliamentary oversight is important in the fight against corruption and maladministration, while acknowledging that Parliament must operate within constitutional and legal limits.
“Parliament must be able to investigate matters affecting public administration and public resources, while remaining within the Constitution and respecting due process, natural justice and the rights of every affected institution and individual,” he said.
Chadza said the case ultimately raises questions about the balance between judicial supervision and parliamentary accountability.
“The courts must retain their power to supervise potentially unlawful public action, while Parliament must remain capable of performing its lawful oversight responsibilities,” he said.
According to Chadza, the case could have implications beyond the institutions currently involved by helping clarify the lawful scope of parliamentary investigations and the limits of judicial intervention in matters of public accountability.
He said he believes his participation will assist the court in considering the perspective of citizens concerned about the protection of public resources and accountability in public institutions.
Chadza said the final decision on the substantive issues and the future of the interim order rests with the High Court.
“Ultimately, the substantive issues and the future scope of the interim order are matters exclusively for the High Court to determine. I will respect its decision,” he said.
He concluded with a call for accountability to remain subject to constitutional safeguards.
“Public power must never become a shield against lawful scrutiny,” Chadza said. “At the same time, accountability must always be pursued within the Constitution, through fair procedures and credible evidence.”
He said striking that balance was essential to fighting corruption while preserving the rule of law.
