By Michael Sidwell

Misick, "who had previously promised to resign on March 31, said he was stepping down early to give his successor more time to set up a new government, even as Britain plans to dissolve the territory's cabinet and legislature following the wide-ranging U.K. corruption inquiry," reports the Associated Press.

In July 2008 a UK government Commission of Inquiry was set up to "look into whether there had been corruption involving past or present elected members of the islands’ House of Assembly, the 21-member parliament,” details Reuters.

An interim report by the Commission describes “a high probability of systematic corruption or serious dishonesty,” and “clear signs of political amorality and immaturity and of a general administrative incompetence” (BBC).

The British government has drawn up an order suspending parts of the islands’ constitution, which will be implemented if the final report, due at the end of April, matches the interim findings, notes the Financial Times.

The order would “remove the cabinet and the House of Assembly from office and hand their powers to the islands’ governor, who represents the Queen,” writes Reuters.

The inquiry was told that Misick, "arranged for his wife to be paid [US] $300,000 (£203,000) from government funds to be the face of an international tourism campaign," reports the Times.

Misick had criticised the moves and called on the UN to intervene on the country’s behalf, according to Bloomberg.

In a statement Misick said: “The British still think that there are none among us who are worthy and/or capable of running the affairs of our country. They still view us all as corrupt people, unfit to govern ourselves.”

The British Foreign Office has rejected accusations of colonial ambitions, stating: “This would not be direct rule, nor would it be indefinite. It would be a smart, targeted, intervention for an interim period by the governor whose responsibilities not only include representing the Crown in the islands, but also the interests of the people of the Turks and Caicos islands,” reports the Financial Times.

By Michael Sidwell

“Supporters threw rose petals as Iftikhar Chaudhry arrived for his first day back at work at the Supreme Court in Islamabad,” reports the BBC.

“There is an endemic corruption in this institution. This cannot be eradicated without the help of lawyers,” said Chaudhry (BBC). “I will request all of you, being officers of this court, to put your house in order first.”

In a welcoming statement the Supreme Court Bar Association Secretary said, “Our struggle for rule of law and independence of judiciary has not ended here, rather onerous responsibilities have been placed on our shoulders for seeking justice for teeming millions irrespective of their caste or creed, or religion and without distinguishing between men and women, of high or low social and economic status,” reports the Daily Times.

“Millions of Pakistanis hope his return, after former military ruler Pervez Musharraf sacked him in 2007, will cleanse the judiciary, but experts warn that he faces huge challenges to bring about legislative and institutional reform,” notes AFP.

“Chaudhry’s reinstatement ended a protest campaign by anti-government lawyers and opposition parties but tension has lingered between the country’s two biggest parties: the Pakistan People’s Party (PPP) of President Asif Ali Zardari and the party of former prime minister and opposition leader Nawaz Sharif,” adds Reuters.

According to the BBC, "One reason for the failure to reinstate him is thought to be the fact that he challenged an amnesty given by Gen Musharraf that enabled Mr Zardari to return to Pakistan, on the grounds that Gen Musharraf's own rule could be illegal."

In his National Day address to the nation on 23 March, Zardari said, “I urge everyone to work in the spirit of tolerance, mutual accommodation, and respect for dissent and invite every one to participate in the national effort for national reconciliation and healing the wounds” (BBC).

“Sworn in on June 30, 2005, one of his [Chaudhry] most famous moves was to take up the cases of missing people allegedly held by Pakistani security forces or handed over to the United States on terror charges,” reports AFP.

By Michael Sidwell

“Muluzi was arrested on 26 February and initially charged with 86 counts of corruption and abuse of office,” reports PANA. “He is being accused of allegedly diverting 1.7 billion Malawi Kwacha (about US$11m [€8.6m]) of donor money into his personal account.”

The former president did not enter a plea, as his lawyers sought more time to prepare for the case. “His lawyer Kalekeni Kaphale told the court that the Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB) only handed over the file containing 80 counts against him earlier this month,” writes AFP.

“The bureau has been investigating Muluzi – president of the southern African country for 10 years until 2004 – for two years for allegedly siphoning money from Taiwan, Morocco, Libya and other donors,” details Reuters.

Muluzi has rejected claims he siphoned public money into his personal bank account. In an interview with Voice of America, he said, “There is nowhere in the world where a donor would write a check to a personal account in my name. It is not possible.”

On 20 March, the Malawi Electoral Commission announced: “Muluzi cannot run in May elections because he has already served the maximum two terms the constitution allows,” reports the Associated Press (AP).

In response Muluzi has filed a lawsuit challenging the decision, writes AFP.

Even if Muluzi is allowed to run the “Criminal proceedings will hamper Muluzi’s campaign because his movements will be restricted,” writes the AP.

“Muluzi is running against the incumbent, Bingu wa Mutharika. The two men used to be allies, but they fell out after Mutharika came to power and accused Muluzi of trying to block his anti-corruption drive,” writes the AP.

There are fears that the inquiry could spark violence before the election.

Muluzi, who ruled Malawi from 1994 to 2004, was “first arrested over the allegations in 2006 but the then-director of public prosecutions threw out the charges,” notes the BBC.