The debate over whether the alliance agreement between UTM and MCP required President Lazarus Chakwera to serve only one term and hand over the candidacy to Vice President Saulos Chilima in the next election remains heated. However, a careful examination of the agreement suggests that this claim is based on a misunderstanding or selective reading of its provisions.
Before assuming office, Lazarus Chakwera publicly stated in a television interview that no agreement restricted him to a single term.
In contrast, Saulos Chilima, during a rally in Njamba, confidently declared that he was to be the alliance’s presidential candidate in the next election, as per the agreement, and that he was also supposed to serve as Minister of Finance.
These conflicting statements have fueled ongoing disputes among supporters of UTM and MCP regarding the actual terms of their political arrangement.
UTM officials and supporters insist that the alliance agreement ensured Chakwera would serve only one term, after which Chilima would take over as the presidential candidate.
MCP, on the other hand, rejects this claim. The confusion arises primarily from Section 3 of the agreement, specifically Clause 3.1.3, which states:
“Subject to the decision of the national executive committee or conventions, as the case may be, of UTM and MCP, the presidential candidate during the fresh election shall not be the presidential candidate during the immediate next election and shall cede the candidacy to the running mate during the fresh election.”
At first glance, this clause seems to suggest that Chakwera was bound to step down after one term, giving way to Chilima. However, a deeper look at the wording tells a different story. The most crucial phrase in this clause is “SUBJECT TO”, which indicates that the arrangement was not automatic but rather conditional.
Malawi-MCP-UTM-Tonse-Alliance-Agreement
The decision on who would run in the next election was to be made by the national executive committees or conventions of both UTM and MCP. This means that neither Chakwera nor Chilima was guaranteed a spot on the ballot—each had to secure their party’s endorsement.
The agreement did not legally bind the parties to a particular candidate for the 2025 election. It also did not prevent either UTM or MCP from selecting entirely new candidates at their respective conventions.
In theory, both Chakwera and Chilima could be replaced by their parties, or one of them could be dropped, effectively nullifying the agreement’s relevance to the next election.
Ultimately, the alliance agreement left room for party decisions and political realities to shape the future, rather than setting in stone a power transition from Chakwera to Chilima. The notion that Chilima was automatically entitled to the 2025 candidacy is based on a misinterpretation of conditional clauses, rather than a binding commitment within the agreement itself.
0 Comments