A standoff is brewing between the National Assembly and the Presidency after the Secretary to the President and Cabinet [SPC] questioned the Speaker’s powers to establish ad-hoc committees.
But retired Judge and legal commentator, Dunstain Mwaungulu, has dismissed the SPC’s statement as’confusing’ and legally flawed, warning that the dispute risks escalating into a constitutional collision between the two arms of government.
In a press statement dated 10th September, 2026, Chief Secretary Justin Adack K. Saidi, PhD, said government fully appreciates the oversight function of the National Assembly.
However, he argued that under Section 56(6) of the Constitution, the power to establish Parliamentary Committees is vested in Parliament which under Section 49(1) consists of the National Assembly, the President and the Senate.
“Therefore, the Speaker alone or the National Assembly cannot unilaterally constitute ad hoc Parliamentary Committee,” the statement read.
But writing on his official Facebook page as a legal and political commentator at the Centre for Law and Policy, Retired Judge Mwaungulu tore into the SPC’s interpretation.
“Not so fast, Mr SPC!There are problems with interpreting the word Parliament in the section to mean the National Assembly, the President and Senate! The context points to the power as given to the National Assembly,” writes the retired Judge.
He further warned SPC Saidi for ignoring Parliament’s own rules saying the Chief Secretary never read the official statement from Parliament on committees and ad-hoc committees.
“That official statement from the National Assembly clearly shows that the legislature can create ad hoc Committees as defined by it. The statement from the National Assembly is superior to that of an SPC even if we assume that the President delegated him to issue such an order,” argues Mwaungulu saying it is even difficult to accept that the Secretary to the President unilaterally and without consulting the official documents of another branch of government on the subject matter makes a statement which to all fair minded people is culminating into a war between the two branches of government.
Mwaungulu further noted that while he has not had access to the Standing Orders of Parliament, the SPC’s message contradicts government’s own earlier concession that the oversight powers of the National Assembly are a given.
The dispute touches on the core principle of separation of powers – one of the pillars government itself reaffirmed in the SPC statement.
He says by challenging the Speaker’s authority, the Executive is effectively questioning Parliament’s independence to conduct oversight, a move critics say undermines checks and balances.
“Parliament’s role is to check the Executive. If the Executive can veto how Parliament forms committees, that oversight is weakened,” he says.
All eyes are now on Speaker of Parliament Sameer Suleman and President Peter Mutharika to clarify their positions.
Legal experts say the matter may ultimately require interpretation by the courts or a ruling from the Speaker citing the National Assembly’s Standing Orders.
As Judge Mwaungulu put it, for now the SPC statement is confusing and risks turning a governance procedure into a full-blown inter-branch war.
Meanwhile Judge Allan Hans Muhome has granted order of stay, paving way for constitutional review if Parliament of Malawi can constitute ad-hoc committees to provide oversight to other public institutions. The application of the review was made by concerned citizen Alex Mkoka.
