Senior Counsel Samuel Tembenu, representing President Peter Mutharika was the first appellant in the appeal, presented his arguments on why they want the February 3 judgment by the Constitutional Court should be overturned.

Tembenu argued that there was no basis to nullify the May 21 presidential election because the irregularities cited did not affect the final outcome of the poll.

Tembenu also argues that the Constitutional Court erred by bringing in the issue of 50+1 as a way of electing a president in Malawi.

He says: “This is because the petitioners did not raise the issue in the originating summons and that the Supreme Court had already made a ruling on the issue in the Chakuamba case where it said that the majority meant who got more votes than the other.

Tembenu concluded his arguments by saying: “the Constitutional Court was wrong to issue consequential orders to Parliament to enact new laws ahead of the fresh presidential election because that role is for the executive arm of government.”

He also said “they don't believe that the tippexed and altered result tally sheets amounted to the breach of the Constitution as the lower court found.”

After Tembenu the court took a 15 minute break.

Hearing of the presidential election appeal case resumed after a 15-minute break with Tamando Chokotho, who is representing second appellant MEC presenting his arguments.

He argued that the petitioners did not prove that the tippexed and altered result sheets affected the final outcome of the election.

Chokotho told the court that the petitioners never brought evidence that could prove that the electoral body favored any of the candidates.

Lawyer for first respondent Dr Saulos Chilima, Dr Chikosa Silungwe made his arguments on why the Constitutional Court's judgment that nullified the May 21, 2019 presidential poll should stand.

He started by saying that the appeal is not competent enough to stand and that if it stands, it must fall on the merits.

Dr. Silungwe says the Supreme Court's determination on Section 80(2) of the Constitution which talks about a Presidential candidate winning by majority, which the Constitutional Court clarified that it meant 50+1, will be the dispositive point on the issue.

In concluding his arguments Dr. Silungwe asked the Supreme Court to make a consequential order that President Peter Mutharika should fire MEC Commissioners because of incompetence as established by the Parliamentary Public Appointments Committee.

He said the Commissioners must be dismissed within seven days of the court's determination and that if the President does not act, it should be considered that the Commissioners have been fired automatically.

Modercai Msisha, lead lawyer for MCP President Dr. Lazarus Chakwera, held the floor and argued that the burden of proof in an election case lies with the electoral body MEC because it has a constitutional responsibility to manage elections in the country.

Msisha argued “MEC did not perform its duties as an Independent Umpire in the May 21, 2019 Presidential poll. He says even the sworn statements of MEC's own Presiding Officers revealed that the poll was marred by irregularities but the electoral body did not review the whole electoral process.”

Msisha says it's baffling that the Executive arm of government, together with MEC, have been ignoring court orders after the Constitutional Court Judgment of February 3 this year and yet they are using the same court process to appeal. He asked the Supreme Court to consider this when making its determination.

The court says it will make its determination as soon as possible.