MALAWI: PARLIAMENT FAILS TO MEET ON SECTION 65,

UNCLAS LILONGWE 000594

SENSITIVE
SIPDIS

STATE FOR AF/S - E. PELLETREAU
LONDON FOR AF WATCHER - PETER LORD

E.O. 12958: N/A
TAGS: PGOV KDEM MI
SUBJECT: MALAWI: PARLIAMENT FAILS TO MEET ON SECTION 65,
BUT ONLY MUTHARIKA MAKES NOISE

REF: LILONGWE 517


1. (SBU) Summary: President Mutharika publicly confirmed
September 29 that he would not recall the National Assembly
as agreed in late August when Parliament passed the national
budget (reftel). The agreement, negotiated by opposition and
government leaders in Parliament but never endoresed publicly
by Mutharika, also included the reassignment of Matilda
Katopola, the Clerk of Parliament. However, Mutharika
instead threatened to "smash the doors open" if the
Parliamentary Service Commission (PSC) did not remove locks
it placed on Katopola's office within seven days. Opposition
leaders had previously promised to hold the government to the
compromise agreement, but party spokespersons have so far
expressed only muted disappointment to the press. Comment:
Both opposition parties' public statements imply that neither
truly expected the agreement to be honored. Moreover, party
spokesmen have admitted a court challenge would be difficult
since the agreement is of a political, rather than legal
nature. With Mutharika unlikely to call for a new session of
Parliament before the May 2009 elections, it appears the MCP
and UDF will have to be content with criticizing the DPP's
duplicity and authoritarian tendencies on the campaign trail.
End Comment and Summary.


2. (U) In a Lilongwe airport press conference September 29
following his return from UNGA meetings, President Bingu wa
Mutharika wasted no time in confirming that he would not
honor the late-August agreement that resulted in the passage
of the national budget. The agreement was negotiated by
Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) and opposition leaders in
the Parliament, but Mutharika never explicitly consented to
it. The agreement called for Parliament to meet by September
29 so the Speaker could implement Section 65 of the
Constitution. Section 65 would force the majority of the
DPP's members to vacate their seats for changing parties
after they were elected. Mutharika reiterated he would only
recall Parliament if the opposition promised to "behave
responsibly" -- as opposed to bringing up Section 65 -- and
pass key development bills such as authorization for the
Malawi-Mozambique electricity interconnection project.


3. (U) Mutharika also voided the second part of the August
agreement by refusing to reassign Matilda Katopola from her
position as the Clerk of Parliament. He threatened to "smash
the doors open" to Katopola's office if the PSC did not
remove locks it had placed on the doors within seven days.
The PSC found Katopola guilty of awarding her own company a
printing service contract without going through proper
procurement procedures. Mutharika pardoned Katopola for the
offense and claimed opposition MPs were simply out to get her
because she had restored financial discipline to the
Parliament. Mutharika credited Katopola with ending the
practice of MPs taking loans from Parliament and never
repaying them.


4. (SBU) Opposition leaders from both the Malawi Congress
Party (MCP) and United Democratic Front (UDF) previously
promised to force the government to honor the agreement.
However, in the week following the deadline, party
spokespersons expressed only muted disappointment, calling
Mutharika a dictator and bemoaning the lack of effective
checks and balances on the executive. Neither John Tembo or
Bakili Muluzi, the respective leaders of the MCP and UDF,
have made any public comments on the missed deadline. The
PSC has been slightly bolder, so far refusing the President's
directive to unseal Katopola's office, claiming they needed
official notification.


5. (SBU) Comment: Opposition leaders continue to tell emboffs
privately that they will not let the broken agreement go
unpunished, yet neither UDF or MCP has tipped their hands on
how they will fight back. Both parties' public statements
imply that neither truly expected the agreement to be
honored. Moreover, the parties have admitted a court
challenge would be difficult since the agreement is of a
political nature. With Mutharika unlikely to call for a new
session of Parliament before the May 2009 elections, it
appears the MCP and UDF will have to be content with
criticizing the DPP's duplicity and authoritarian tendencies
on the campaign trail.
SULLIVAN