The High Court of Malawi has overturned the extradition of self-proclaimed prophet Shepherd Bushiri and his wife Mary Bushiri, finding that a magistrate’s decision to hand them over to South Africa was legally unsound, procedurally unfair, and put their lives at risk.
In a judgment delivered on Friday, October 31, 2025, Justice Mzonde Mvula ruled that the extradition process “fell short” of the standards required under Malawi law and that the couple had been denied their constitutional right to be heard.
The ruling sets aside the decision of the Chief Resident Magistrate’s Court in Lilongwe, which in March had ordered the Bushiris’ committal to await surrender to South Africa, where they are wanted on charges of fraud, money laundering, and rape allegations.
This comes after the couple fled South Africa in November 2020, days after being granted bail while standing trial on fraud and money laundering charges amounting to R102 million.
Bushiri had maintained that he was unfairly targeted by the South African law enforcement and that his safety could not be guaranteed if he returned.
Mvula found that the lower court “did not exercise judicial discretion correctly by making a finding for extradition, when the evidence on the extradition hearing fell short to make this finding.”
He said the proceedings violated the fundamental legal principle of audi alteram partem, the right to be heard, because the magistrate “delivered a ruling after hearing only the case of the Respondent.”
The judge emphasised that “even in extradition proceedings, where hearing is opted, then both sides to the case ought to be heard.”
The High Court criticised the magistrate for failing to provide adequate reasons for her decision, saying “only one out of eight issues under consideration was properly analysed,” and that key objections raised by the Bushiris, including hearsay evidence, improper document authentication, and threats to their lives, had been ignored.
Mvula said the extradition request relied heavily on “hearsay evidence,” pointing out that the witness for South Africa “admitted under cross-examination that he relied on investigators, who themselves relied on complainants.”
He ruled that such evidence was “inadmissible in Malawian extradition proceedings,” adding that “equality before the law is paramount and cardinal principle of law.”
The court also found that documents submitted by South Africa were not properly authenticated. “The scanned documents shown to Justice Schyff for authentication were not identical to the originals,” Mvula said, noting that “Justice Schyff confirmed she never saw the originals, only scanned copies.”
He added that the magistrate “had no authority to invent or expand charges beyond what was formally submitted,” after discovering that Mary Bushiri had been committed on an “immigration-related forgery” charge that did not appear in the official extradition docket.
On the rape allegations, Justice Mvula said the finding of “sufficient evidence on 3 rape counts lacks legal basis,” as there was “no mapping between complainants and the warrants,” and the court had failed to analyse “whether the statements supported the legal definition of rape under Malawian law.”
The High Court also accused the South African authorities of acting in bad faith and delay. It said the extradition request was “tainted by bad faith, political motivation, and oppressive delay,” pointing to a five-year gap between the alleged offences in 2015 and the charges brought in 2020.
The judgment further highlighted safety concerns raised by the Bushiris, including an incident where “a Mercedes Benz E 200 for applicants blew up in a bomb attack” shortly after they had alighted.
Mvula said, “The right to life is more paramount than availability to face trial,” faulting the magistrate for failing to “preserve the lives of the applicants.”
“All in all, the hearing was one sided. Applicants were never given opportunity to present their side of the story,” he said.
Citing Section 353(2)(a)(ii) of the Criminal Procedure and Evidence Code, the High Court set aside the March committal order, ruling that “the conclusion the Magistrate arrived at to extradite, does not follow from the premises extradition is sought.”
“The Magistrate lacked brevity to stand by the course of justice to dismiss the request entirely for reasons explained above,” Mvula added. “We have completed what was omitted to be done.”
hope.ntanzi@iol.co.za
IOL News
Get your news on the go. Download the latest IOL App for Android and IOS now.
