𝗥𝘂𝗹𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗦𝘂𝗺𝗺𝗮𝗿𝘆 - 𝗥𝗼𝘇𝗮 𝗠𝗮𝗱𝗮𝗹𝗼 𝗙𝗮𝘁𝗰𝗵 𝗩. 𝗠𝗮𝗹𝗮𝘄𝗶 𝗘𝗹𝗲𝗰𝘁𝗼𝗿𝗮𝗹 𝗖𝗼𝗺𝗺𝗶𝘀𝘀𝗶𝗼𝗻

𝗥𝗨𝗟𝗜𝗡𝗚 𝗦𝗨𝗠𝗠𝗔𝗥𝗬

𝗥𝗼𝘇𝗮 𝗠𝗮𝗱𝗮𝗹𝗼 𝗙𝗮𝘁𝗰𝗵 𝗩. 𝗠𝗮𝗹𝗮𝘄𝗶 𝗘𝗹𝗲𝗰𝘁𝗼𝗿𝗮𝗹 𝗖𝗼𝗺𝗺𝗶𝘀𝘀𝗶𝗼𝗻

In The High Court of Malawi

Principal Registry

Civil Division

Electoral Matter No. 03 of 2025

Before Honourable Justice Allan Hans Muhome

7th September 2025

𝗕𝗮𝗰𝗸𝗴𝗿𝗼𝘂𝗻𝗱

The matter was brought before the High Court by Roza Madalo Fatch under Section 100 of the Presidential, Parliamentary and Local Government Elections Act (PPLGA), 2023. The case arose following a dispute between the petitioner and the Malawi Electoral Commission (MEC) over the name under which she was to appear on the ballot for the 2025 parliamentary elections.

The petitioner was originally born as Roza Madalo Fatch on 6th October 1968. Upon her marriage to the late Francis Mbilizi, she adopted the surname Mbilizi, and her National Identity (NID) Card was issued in the name ‘Rosa Madalo Mbilizi’ for the period 31st January 2019 to 6th October 2024. This NID card was valid during the voter registration period (27th November to 10th December 2024), resulting in her details being recorded in the voters’ register as Rosa Madalo Mbilizi.

After her husband’s death in August 2020, she reverted to her maiden name and obtained a new NID card under the surname ‘Fatch’ in December 2024. She campaigned and submitted nomination papers under this maiden name. However, MEC informed her that her candidature would appear on the ballot under Mbilizi, the name reflected in her voter registration certificate.

The petitioner argued that she had the right to Name Reversion: Under the Change of Names (Restriction) Act, Cap 24:02, which states that a widow may revert to her maiden name without ministerial approval. Her change of name after her husband’s death was therefore automatic and valid. She also claimed to have consistently campaigned under the name Fatch, after having received verbal assurance from MEC officials that her nomination would be approved under her maiden name.

𝗥𝗲𝘀𝗽𝗼𝗻𝗱𝗲𝗻𝘁’𝘀 𝗣𝗼𝘀𝗶𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻

MEC, represented by Counsel Lawrence Lunguzi and Counsel Andy Kaonga, opposed the petition on the following grounds:

1. Section 38(1)(d) of the PPLGA requires that a parliamentary candidate must be a registered voter, and Section 12 requires that eligibility be proven through a valid NID. At the time of registration, the petitioner’s NID was in the name Mbilizi.

2. Section 19(2) of the PPLGA prohibits altering voter registration details when the change of name is due to a change in marital status.

3. Allowing name changes outside the prescribed process could undermine the credibility of the voters’ register and compromise the integrity of elections.

4. The petitioner had not filed an application for change of registration details using Form 4A, the procedure mandated under the PPLGA.

𝗖𝗼𝘂𝗿𝘁’𝘀 𝗙𝗶𝗻𝗱𝗶𝗻𝗴𝘀

The Court agreed with MEC’s submission in saying that Section 19(2) is not discriminatory but aims at safeguarding the integrity of an election by ascertaining the names of registered voters regardless of change in marital status, through the NID Card details provided at the time of voter registration. It also stressed on the PPLGA being a specialized law, and must be interpreted as such.

𝗢𝗿𝗱𝗲𝗿

The Court dismissed the petition and upheld MEC’s decision to use the name Mbilizi on the ballot paper. The Court ordered that each party bear their own costs, considering the facts of the petition and in keeping with section 100(2)(b) of the PPLGA.

Access the Ruling: https://www.judiciary.mw/node/788