The Malawi election case resumed this morning with lawyer representing UTM , Counsel Chikosa Silungwe, objecting Attorney General Kalekeni Kaphale’s line of cross examination.
Kaphale is cross examining Mirriam Gwalidi, a witness for the first petitioner—UTM
But rising on objection, Silungwe said the Attorney General’s line of questioning was not in line with purpose of cross examination thereby asking the court to give guidance on the same.
Counsel Silungwe pleaded with the court to hear from both petitioners on how cross examination should be conducted.
Reacting, AG Kaphale said his was forced to adopt that line of cross examination considering the way the witness was responding to questions.
“The witness being cross examined, Miriam Gwalidi, needs to be guided on how to answer questions, she is even answering questions that are not asked.”
Kaphale, in an apparent demonstration of anger with continued objections from the petitioners’ lawyers, added that “I feel I am being barred from asking questions.”
Lead Judge Healey Potani allowed advised Silungwe to guide the witness on how well to answer the questions.
Before starting the case in the morning, Lead Judge Potani announced that the court has extended period of hearing for second phase from nine days as earlier communicated to fourteen days for significance progress.
The Court also asked the Attorney General Kalekeni Kaphale to give update on the application to submit the elections audit report out of time.
Kaphale said the application is not ready to be heard this morning, asking the court to have it heard after ten days. He said communication between MEC and auditors is slow and that first petitioner has some objections.
First petitioner’s lawyer said will present a sworn statement by Thursday. Court will rule later on the hearing of the application.
Chilima who leads the UTM and Malawi Congress Party president Lazarus Chakwera are challenging the outcome of the May 21 elections in which President Peter Mutharika was declared winner.
Mutharika and the Malawi Electoral Commission (MEC) are respondents in the case.
