Africa-Press – Malawi. The High Court of Malawi has delivered a decisive victory for Prophet Shepherd Huxley Bushiri and his wife, Mary Bushiri, after setting aside a lower court’s order that would have extradited the couple to South Africa.
In a landmark ruling delivered in Lilongwe, Honourable Justice Mzonde Mvula found that the extradition proceedings against the Bushiris were unlawful, procedurally flawed, and violated Malawi’s constitutional guarantees of fairness, equality, and the right to life.
The ruling effectively halts South Africa’s long-standing effort to have the couple returned to face charges of fraud, forgery, and rape — allegations which the Bushiris have consistently denied.
Justice Mvula’s judgment followed a detailed review of the 12 March 2025 decision by the Chief Resident Magistrate’s Court, which had ordered the couple’s committal to prison pending surrender to South Africa.
But according to the High Court, the proceedings before the magistrate were fundamentally flawed.
“The applicants were denied the right to be heard, in breach of the principle of audi alteram partem,” Justice Mvula said in his ruling. “The Magistrate delivered a ruling after hearing only the case of the respondent. Even in extradition proceedings, where hearing is opted, both sides ought to be heard.”
The Court found that no charge was read to the Bushiris, no explanation of their rights was given, and they were effectively condemned without being allowed to speak.
Legal analysts described this finding as a stern reminder that “due process cannot be sacrificed, even in politically charged international cases.”
The Court also took issue with the evidence used to support South Africa’s extradition request, describing it as unreliable and improperly authenticated.
Justice Mvula noted that the documents presented to South African Justice Schyff for authentication were merely scanned copies that differed materially from the originals.
“The law requires authentication by a judge or official of the requesting state,” the Judge said. “This never happened in the extradition request of the present applicants.”
Equally troubling, the High Court found that the main South African witness, Advocate Mzinyathi, relied entirely on hearsay — statements made by investigators and complainants whom he had never directly interviewed.
“This is a dangerous trajectory, to say the least, clutching at straws,” Justice Mvula observed, warning that extradition decisions must rest on “admissible and reliable evidence, not summaries of allegations.”
In a further blow to the prosecution’s case, the High Court found that some of the charges against the Bushiris had been “invented” at the lower court level.
Mary Bushiri, the Judge noted, was committed on a charge of “immigration-related forgery” that did not appear in the original extradition docket.
“The Magistrate had no authority to invent or expand charges beyond what was formally submitted,” Justice Mvula ruled.
He also observed that the alleged rape charges were unclear and unsupported. Although the Authority to Proceed listed three counts, the ruling failed to specify which three were upheld and whether they corresponded with the warrants issued by South Africa.
“The complainants were anonymised (A to H), and there was no mapping between them and the warrants,” the Judge explained.
Regarding the forgery allegations linked to aircraft loan agreements, the Court found the evidence insufficient. “The key witness, Mr. Kruger, is deceased,” the Judge wrote. “No one else could authenticate the documents. The conclusion does not logically follow from the premises.”
The High Court went beyond questions of law to address the wider humanitarian and political dimensions of the case.
Justice Mvula cited credible concerns over the Bushiris’ safety should they be returned to South Africa, pointing to a previous bomb attack on their car in which they narrowly escaped death.
“The request is tainted by bad faith, political motivation, and oppressive delay,” the Judge ruled.
He added that South African authorities had not adequately responded to evidence of xenophobic hostility, extortion, and threats made against the couple by members of the Gauteng police.
“The right to life is more paramount than availability to face trial,” Justice Mvula stated. “The Republic is focused on securing their presence at all costs in South Africa, without guaranteeing their safety there.”
In his final orders, Justice Mvula exercised the High Court’s supervisory powers under Section 26 of the Courts Act to overturn the magistrate’s decision in full.
He found that the lower court had misapplied judicial discretion, ignored key provisions of the Extradition Act, and failed to uphold constitutional safeguards.
“The conclusion the Magistrate arrived at to extradite does not follow from the premises on which extradition is sought,” he wrote. “The decision cannot stand in law.”
The ruling concluded that “lives matter over these allegations,” and that any extradition must be guided not only by procedure but by protection of human dignity and safety.
Following the ruling, legal commentators described the decision as a reaffirmation of Malawi’s judicial independence and a warning against foreign pressure in sensitive extradition cases.
“This is not just a legal win for the Bushiris,” one senior lawyer observed. “It is a statement that Malawi’s courts will not rubber-stamp international requests that disregard fairness, human rights, and due process.”
While South African authorities have yet to respond formally, it remains uncertain whether they will submit a new extradition request. Legal experts suggest that the procedural flaws identified by the High Court may make such an attempt difficult to sustain.
For the Bushiris, the decision marks a dramatic reversal of fortune and a vindication of their claims of persecution. As the Judge concluded in his ruling, “The right to life and fairness in process remain the bedrock of justice.”
For More News And Analysis About Malawi Follow Africa-Press
