Zachimalawi update on convicted, pardoned gays: What's new?

Gays rebuff asylum offer
By Richard Chirombo
Malawi’s open gay couple of Steven Monjeza and Tiwonge Chimbalanga has rebuffed an asylum offer from Outrage’s Peter Thatchell, saying they are Malawians who would die in Malawi, no matter how negative the stakes against them.
Monjeza and Chimbalanga, who last Tuesday addressed the press in Lilongwe and appealed for respect for their privacy, said in separate interviews they would rather stay in Malawi than to a foreign land in the name of ‘seeking freedom’.
“While we appreciate the offers (for asylum), we are happy here. We are Malawians and will die so (Malawians). After all, we feel we have an intolerant president who has shown the way by pardoning us. We will remain in Malawi,” said Monjeza.
Chimbalanga, on the other hand, said ‘she’ saw no reason to go into exile and live as a prisoner-of-conscience because ‘she’ has wronged nobody in society.
“What wrong did we commit? This is our country; we love it,” said Chimbalanga.
United Kingdom-based Outrage offered the two convicted gays the opportunity to choose the country they wanted, possibly so they could continue to live as husband and wife.
But Chimbalanga and Monjeza have preferred to remain in Malawi.
Reports indicate that the two may have rebuffed the offers because of the poor English speaking abilities, as it would be difficult at their stage to start learning a new language.
Monjeza and Chimbalanga held Malawi’s first-ever gay engagement on December 22, 2009, and were subsequently arrested on December 28 on charges of gross indecency and canal knowledge of each other against the order on nature.
They were later convicted and sentenced to 14 years in prison with hard labour.
A visit by United Nations Secretary General Ban Ki-moon and his subsequent meeting with Malawi’s president, Bingu wa Mutharika, then secured the impossible: the unconditional release of the country’s first open gay couple.
Ban announced the release of the two in Malawi Parliament on Saturday, fueling reports Mutharika bowed to donor pressure.
Mutharika denies he bowed to donor pressure, though he later (on Tuesday) accused the donors of contriving to suspend aid to the Southern African Development Community member state on the pretext of the gays’ arrest.
He has since gagged cabinet ministers from speaking on the issue, saying doing so could fan unnecessary confusion.

Pardoned gays could go back to jail
President Bingu wa Mutharika violated the law in pardoning convicted gays, Steven Monjeza and Tiwonge Chimbalanga, without consulting a committee to deliberate over the decision as stipulated in the Malawi Constitution, legal experts say.
The experts say Mutharika’s unilateral decision means that the process that led to Chimbalanga and Monjeza’s unconditional release is illegal. This means the two face the possibility of being sent back to jail, the experts say.
For example, lawyer Kamuzu Chibambo, who is also People’s Transformation Party (Petra) president, argues that the Constitutional provisional that confers powers on the president to effect pardons, also empowers him to reduce sentences.
“ (Therefore) why didn’t he choose the option of reducing their sentences (other than pardoning them)?” queries Chibambo.
Other lawyers agreed with Chibambo, saying Chimbalanga and Monjeza should go back to jail because the process that led to their release is illegal.
But the Malawi Law Society (MLS), other than picking issue with how Mutharika- who is also African Union Chairperson- pardoned the two, has questioned the president’s decision to gag cabinet ministers from speaking on the issue.
MLS President, John Gift-Mwakhwawa, says Mutharika’s decision does not augur well with freedom of expression, and asked ‘principled’ ministers to defy the president and speak out.
Mwakhwawa said there may be cabinet ministers who may wish to speak out, owing to the publicity the issue of gays has generated in Malawi, but may not do so for fear of receiving the punishment that never fails: a boot from Mutharika’s cabinet.
He described the decision as illegal since it violates Constitutional provisions.