Judge Allan Hans Muhome's Ruling Temporarily Reinstates NFCA, NYFA, and NFRA as FAM Affiliates

The High Court of Malawi has issued an interim order compelling the Football Association of Malawi (FAM) to allow three expelled affiliate members—the National Football Coaches Association (NFCA), National Youth Football Association (NYFA), and National Football Referees Association (NFRA)—to attend its Annual General Meeting (AGM) as full affiliates. This ruling, delivered by Judge Allan Hans Muhome, temporarily reinstates the associations with all associated rights and benefits, pending a full hearing on the legality of their expulsion. The decision underscores the judiciary's role in ensuring due process and adherence to internal governance rules within private associations, particularly when fundamental membership rights are at stake.

In a significant development for sports governance in Malawi, the High Court has intervened in a contentious dispute involving the Football Association of Malawi (FAM) and three of its previously expelled affiliate bodies. The National Football Coaches Association (NFCA), National Youth Football Association (NYFA), and National Football Referees Association (NFRA) successfully secured an interim order from the High Court, mandating their attendance at FAM's upcoming Annual General Meeting (AGM) as full affiliates. This judicial directive, issued by Judge Allan Hans Muhome, comes after the three associations were controversially de-linked from FAM membership during a prior AGM in June 2025.

The High Court's decision is more than a procedural formality; it represents a crucial assertion of judicial oversight over the internal affairs of private associations, particularly those with significant public interest mandates like national sports federations. The ruling highlights the paramount importance of due process, natural justice, and adherence to an organisation's own constitutional instruments, even in the realm of sports administration. This article will delve into the legal underpinnings of this interim order, examining the statutory and common law principles that likely guided the court's decision and exploring the broader implications for governance within Malawian associations.

The Football Association of Malawi (FAM) operates as the primary governing body for football in the country, affiliated with international bodies such as FIFA, CAF, and COSAFA. It is registered under the Malawi National Council of Sports Act (Cap 30:05 of the Laws of Malawi), which provides the overarching legal framework for sports organisations in the nation. Like many associations, FAM's internal operations, including membership criteria, disciplinary procedures, and general assembly protocols, are governed by its own statutes and regulations.

In June 2025, during its Annual General Meeting, FAM resolved to expel the National Football Coaches Association, National Youth Football Association, and National Football Referees Association as affiliates. FAM's rationale for this expulsion reportedly centered on the argument that the functions of these three bodies were duplicated by existing FAM structures, and that their de-linking was in line with FIFA and CAF statutes. However, the affected associations contended that their expulsion was unlawful, citing significant procedural irregularities and a lack of adherence to FAM's own constitutional provisions, particularly concerning notice, the right to be heard, and proper voting mechanisms.

Under Malawian law, the principles of administrative justice are enshrined in Section 43 of the Constitution, which guarantees every person the right to administrative action that is lawful, reasonable, and procedurally fair, and the right to be furnished with reasons for administrative action where their rights, freedoms, legitimate expectations, or interests are affected. While traditionally applied to public bodies, Malawian courts have extended the principles of natural justice to private bodies, especially where such bodies exercise significant power over their members or where constitutional rights are implicated. The High Court, under Section 108(2) of the Constitution, possesses original jurisdiction to review any law and any action or decision of the government for conformity with the Constitution, a power that can extend to scrutinising decisions of private entities that impact fundamental rights.

The High Court's interim order compelling FAM to reinstate the expelled affiliates for its AGM is rooted in fundamental principles of natural justice and procedural fairness, which are deeply embedded in Malawian jurisprudence. The claimants, represented by lawyer David Kanyenda, argued that their expulsion in June 2025 was effected unlawfully and without due process. Specifically, they alleged a lack of prior notice regarding the expulsion on the AGM agenda, absence of written justification, denial of the right to be heard, and violations of voting procedures, including the use of open placard voting instead of a secret ballot and failure to verify a two-thirds majority as allegedly required by Article 36(4) of the FAM Statutes.

Judge Allan Hans Muhome's decision to grant the interim order likely hinged on the court's assessment that there was a serious question to be tried regarding the legality of the expulsion and that the balance of convenience favoured granting temporary relief. The court would have considered the irreparable harm the associations would suffer by being excluded from the AGM as full affiliates, including the loss of voting rights and financial benefits such as fuel allowances, sitting allowances, and accommodation, which are accorded to affiliate members. Attending merely as 'stakeholders,' as FAM had initially proposed, would have stripped them of these crucial rights and privileges, effectively diminishing their standing and voice within the football governance structure.

FAM, through its lawyer Luciano Mickeus, attempted to argue that the court documents were served late, hindering their ability to prepare a defence. However, this argument was not persuasive enough to prevent the interim order, with the claimants' lawyer asserting that all papers were properly submitted and stamped. Furthermore, FAM suffered a second legal setback when the High Court dismissed its subsequent application to vary the initial order, thereby maintaining the full membership status of the three associations for the AGM. This demonstrates the court's firm stance on ensuring that the status quo is preserved and that alleged procedural breaches are addressed, pending a substantive determination. While the National Referees Committee (NRC) has reportedly distanced itself from the legal challenge, the NFCA and NYFA's pursuit of justice highlights the broader implications for internal governance and member rights within sports bodies.

Malawian courts have a history of reviewing decisions of both public and private bodies where principles of natural justice are violated. Cases such as *Kapile and Others v Council of the University of Malawi* and *Nkhoma and Others v Council of the University of Malawi* illustrate the application of natural justice principles to public corporations. More broadly, Section 43 of the Constitution, as interpreted in cases like *Chawani v. Attorney General*, entrenches the principles of natural justice, requiring fairness in administrative actions. The High Court's intervention in this FAM matter reinforces that even private associations, particularly those with a national mandate and significant public interest, are not immune from judicial scrutiny when their internal processes are challenged on grounds of fundamental fairness and adherence to their own governing instruments.

The High Court of Malawi's interim order is a timely reminder to all associations and governing bodies in Malawi, particularly those in the sports sector, of the critical importance of adhering to principles of natural justice and their own constitutional frameworks. For FAM, the immediate implication is the mandatory attendance of the NFCA, NYFA, and NFRA as full affiliates at its upcoming AGM, ensuring their participation with all rights and benefits. This decision temporarily restores a measure of balance and representation, preventing the AGM from proceeding under the cloud of an allegedly unlawful exclusion.

For legal practitioners, this case underscores the judiciary's willingness to intervene in the internal affairs of private organisations when procedural fairness and fundamental rights are at stake. It highlights the necessity for associations to meticulously follow their own statutes and regulations, especially concerning membership, disciplinary actions, and voting procedures. Failure to observe these internal rules, alongside the broader principles of natural justice, can lead to costly and reputation-damaging litigation. As the substantive matter is yet to be fully heard, all eyes will be on the High Court for its final determination, which will undoubtedly set a significant precedent for governance and accountability within Malawian associations.