By Daniel Zimba:
The High Court’s Constitutional Court in Blantyre has adjourned a land case involving Pacific Limited to 28 and 29 April.
The private company is challenging provisions of the Land (Amendment) Act and the Customary Land (Amendment) Act, arguing that they are unconstitutional and discriminatory.
The case was before Justices Jabbar Alide, Chimwemwe Kamowa and Dick Sankhulani but was adjourned due to procedural issues that both parties agreed to address.
Private company Pacific Limited contends that the amendments unfairly restrict property rights and discriminate against certain groups, particularly regarding land ownership by non-citizens and the definition of “indigenous Malawian”.
- Advertisement -
Through lawyers Modecai Msisha and Bright Theu, the company is seeking to have the provisions invalidated, claiming they violate constitutional guarantees of equality, property rights and economic freedom.
Attorney General Frank Mbeta, representing the government, defended the laws, arguing that they were enacted through a transparent process following extensive consultations.
Mbeta added that the burden of proof lies with Pacific Limited to demonstrate constitutional violations, which he said the company has not done.
“It is not enough to allege that sections of legislation violate constitutional rights without adducing evidence,” he said.
- Advertisement -
- Advertisement -
He added that the amendments address longstanding concerns about Malawi’s land laws, which stakeholders had criticised as flawed when first enacted in 2016.
Parliamentary debates in 2022 acknowledged errors in the original laws, prompting then-president Lazarus Chakwera to order a review.
Mbeta argued that the contested provisions serve public interests, including preventing speculative landholding, regulating development and ensuring equitable access to land for Malawians.
He added that Pacific owns 143 leasehold and freehold properties but had not shown how the amendments arbitrarily deprived it of property or hindered business operations.
“The claimant has failed to demonstrate how the impugned sections arbitrarily deprived proprietary interests,” Mbeta said.
On the definition of “indigenous Malawian”, Mbeta dismissed claims of discrimination, insisting that the provision aligns with constitutional principles of citizenship and national identity.
He has urged the court to interpret the Constitution “in light of Malawi’s history, values and development needs”, saying that Parliament acted within its mandate.
