The blocking of a search warrant targeting Namuleri Farms Limited, owned by former Finance Minister Simplex Chithyola Banda, has once again thrust Malawi’s justice system into the center of a heated national debate on transparency, accountability, and the independence of the judiciary.

At the heart of the matter lies a fundamental constitutional question: why do search warrants exist, and under what circumstances should courts restrain their execution?

The Constitutional Purpose of Search Warrants

Under Malawi’s Constitution and criminal procedure laws, search warrants exist to strike a delicate balance between two competing interests.

On one hand is the right to privacy and protection from arbitrary state intrusion, guaranteed to every citizen regardless of status or political affiliation.

On the other hand is the public interest in investigating crime, particularly when allegations involve the plundering or misuse of public resources.

Search warrants are not instruments of punishment.
They are investigative tools, designed to preserve evidence, prevent its concealment or destruction, and enable the State to establish whether criminal conduct has occurred.

When courts block or delay search warrants, they are not merely protecting private rights; they are also shaping the trajectory of criminal accountability itself.

Criminal Suspects and the Presumption of Innocence

It is constitutionally correct that criminal suspects are presumed innocent until proven guilty.

Former ministers, businesspeople, and politically exposed persons enjoy the same rights as ordinary citizens.

However, the presumption of innocence does not mean immunity from investigation.

Nor does it justify erecting procedural barriers so high that investigators are effectively paralyzed before evidence can even be examined.

In corruption-related cases, evidence is often perishable, movable, or easily concealed.

Blocking a search warrant at a preliminary stage risks undermining the very purpose for which the warrant was sought.

Blocking Search Warrants: Legal Safeguard or Tactical Shield?

Courts have the lawful authority to stay or set aside warrants if they are defective, vague, or obtained through abuse of process.

In this case, the argument advanced was that the State failed to provide batch numbers or serial identifiers for the allegedly stolen fertilizer.

Legally, this argument has merit.

But context matters.

Search warrants are often sought precisely because investigators lack full details and need access to premises to confirm or disprove suspicions.

If courts begin to demand near-conclusive proof before a search is conducted, then the investigative process is reversed and weakened.

The danger is that judicial caution, while well-intentioned, may inadvertently become a tactical shield for those with resources, lawyers, and influence.

Judicial Independence Versus Public Perception

Malawi’s judiciary is constitutionally independent, and that independence must be protected at all costs.

Yet independence does not place courts beyond public scrutiny.

Repeated judicial interventions that appear to benefit politically connected individuals, while ordinary citizens face swift and unforgiving processes, inevitably raise questions.

These questions are not attacks on the courts.
They are symptoms of eroding public trust.

When citizens begin to believe that the law moves slowly—or stops entirely—when powerful figures are involved, confidence in justice collapses.

Political Bias or Structural Weakness?

It is tempting to label such court decisions as politically biased.

However, the more uncomfortable truth may lie in structural weaknesses within Malawi’s criminal justice system:

Overreliance on technicalities

Poorly prepared applications by the State

Weak investigative capacity

A legal culture that favors form over substance

These weaknesses combine to produce outcomes that look biased, even when courts may be acting within the letter of the law.

The Cost to Transparency and Accountability

When search warrants are blocked in high-profile corruption cases, the immediate beneficiaries are not constitutional rights alone.

The broader effect is a chilling signal to investigators, whistleblowers, and the public that accountability is negotiable.

For a country struggling with economic hardship, donor fatigue, and public anger over corruption, this perception is deeply damaging.

Justice must not only be done; it must be seen to be done, especially where public resources are concerned.

Conclusion: A Constitutional Crossroads

Malawi stands at a constitutional crossroads.

The courts must continue to safeguard rights and prevent abuse of state power.

But they must also be conscious that excessive procedural insulation of suspects—particularly politically exposed persons—risks turning constitutional protections into obstacles to accountability.

Search warrants are not convictions.
They are questions.

And when courts consistently prevent those questions from being asked, the nation is entitled to ask a harder one in return:

Who is the law truly protecting?

The Maravi Post