By Draxon Maloya

Mzuzu, Malawi – June 5, 2026; The Young Human Rights Defenders Network (YHRDN) has expressed concern over what it describes as “selective and prejudicial language” used by High Court Judge Mzonde Mvula in granting bail to 20-year-old murder suspect Aman Khansia.

The ruling, delivered on May 27 in Miscellaneous Criminal Application No. 108 of 2026, has sparked debate among legal observers and the public, with critics questioning whether the judgment tilted the narrative in favor of the accused before trial proceedings have begun.

Addressing the media in Mzuzu on Friday YHRDN noted that, “Justice Mvula’s eight-page ruling appeared to adopt Khansia’s version of events almost verbatim, while casting the group linked to the deceased, Abdul Aziz Panjwani, in a negative light”.

The Network highlighted passages where Khansia’s companions were described neutrally as “friends,” while Panjwani’s companions were repeatedly labeled as “unruly boys,” “very drunk,” and “irritating and loud.”

“As YHRDN were of the view that such framing risks undermining judicial neutrality, especially in a case where public confidence in the courts is paramount. “Would the ruling have lost anything if the court had simply stated ‘according to the applicant’ before repeating these allegations?” reads part of the Network’s statement.

The fatal incident occurred on April 4 at Wheelhouse Cottage in Senga Bay, Salima, where Khansia allegedly ran over Panjwani with his father’s Toyota Land Cruiser Prado during a confrontation.

While bail hearings are intended to determine whether an accused will appear for trial and whether release serves the interests of justice, YHRDN contends that the ruling went beyond this scope by embedding the defense’s narrative.

Chairperson Mervin Nxumayo emphasized that the family of Panjwani and the nation at large deserve a fair trial based on evidence, not a bail ruling that appears to assign blame prematurely.

“The Network vow to monitor the case closely and consider joining proceedings “in whatever way possible and appropriate” to safeguard fairness and judicial integrity,” concludes the statement.