Eisenhower Mkaka claims Lazarus Chakwera won with over 2 million votes


Malawi Congress Party (MCP) Secretary General, Eisenhower Mkaka, has claimed that MCP President Lazarus Chakwera won the May 21 elections by 2,072,826 votes against DPPs Peter Mutharika who allegedly got 1,817,473 votes.

Mkaka has made the claims in his sworn statements presented to the Constitutional Court hearing the elections case in Lilongwe.

His claims came to light Wednesday when Attorney General, Kalekeni Kaphale, who is representing the Malawi Electoral Commission (Mec) in the case, started cross-examining Anthony Bendulo, who is the fourth MCP witness in the case.


Mkaka argues in his statement that based on their tally centre, “MCP President Dr Lazarus Chakwera obtained 2,072,826 against DPP’s Professor Arthur Peter Mutharika’s 1,817,474 votes”.

The allegation gives Chakwera a lead of 255,352 votes.

“We strongly believe that Mec concealed a figure of 317,154 votes for Dr Lazarus Chakwera from his Central Region stronghold,” reads part of Mkaka’s statement.


Kaphale, who was making a cross-reference to Mkaka’s statement, wondered why MCP was coming up with different figures to claim victory in the election.

Among others, Kaphale said one of MCP witnesses, Peter Lackson, had indicated that Chakwera had won the election by a difference of 82,211 votes.

Kaphale further said the same Lackson also claimed that Chakwera won the same election by a difference of 10,000 votes.

The AG said although MCP had two parallel tabulation centres in Lilongwe and Blantyre, the party did not present to court a comprehensive tabulation of the vote count.

“Don’t you think this failure by your party to come up with one single figure of votes [that were] affected arises from the fact that your parallel tally centre did not produce a comprehensive vote tabulation of the whole country?

“Did any of your two centres ever do a comprehensive tabulation that you are keeping in the offices?” Kaphale asked Bendulo.

Bendulo said MCP did a comprehensive tabulation of the votes, part of which was submitted by Lackson.

He said the party did not bring to court the whole comprehensive report because it did not have many backup documents from Mec such as carbonated copies which were supposed to be given to monitors.

“Bringing these documents to court without these official backup documents, in this case carbonated copies, was not the best way to approach this.

“Considering that most of these results, including from places where our monitors were refused carbon copies, came through phones, text messages and, in some cases, written just on a piece of paper because our monitors could not afford to get the carbonated copies,” Bendulo said.

Facebook Notice for EU! You need to login to view and post FB Comments!
Show More

Related Articles

Back to top button

Adblock Detected

Please consider supporting us by disabling your ad blocker