UNIVERSITY OF MALAWI

CHANCELLOR COLLEGE

Faculty of Law

LLB (Hons) Entrance Examination 2019

DATE: 29 July 2019 TIME: 8.30am - 12.00pm

GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS

1. There are FOUR Sections in this Question Paper.

2. Please read the instructions for each Section carefully.

3. Begin your answer to each question on a separate answer sheet.

4. Clearly indicate on each answer sheet your Examination Number Only. Do

not indicate your name or other identification.

1
SECTION A: WRITING SKILLS – PERSONAL STATEMENTS

Write short personal statements of no more than 100 words each on the following:

(a) What Are Your Most Notable Accomplishments? (5 marks)

(b) What Are Your Most Notable Failures? (5 marks)

(c) What Are Your Law-related Goals? (5 marks)

(d) Why Do You Want to Go to Law School? (5 marks)

(e) Write an Introduction of Yourself. (5 marks)

2
SECTION B: READING AND COMPREHENSION SKILLS

Instructions:

1. Ensure that there are FOUR questions in this Section.

2. You are required to answer all the FOUR questions.

3. The marks for each question are indicated against each question.

4. Read the document marked ATTACHMENT 1 below before attempting to

answer Questions 1 – 3 of this section.

ATTACHMENT 1
Malawi Law Commission, Review of The Malawi Constitution. Discussion Paper No.
3 -Electoral Systems And Management Of Elections [Malawi], pp. 4-15

(available at
http://www.sdnp.org.mw/lawcom/index.htm?http%3A/www.sdnp.org.mw/lawcom/personnel.htm)

CHAPTER I

1. INTRODUCTION

Elections are the defining moment in any democracy as they perform a fundamental
task of conferring legitimacy to elected governments.

Strictly defined, electoral systems are the mechanisms by which preferences of

citizens are translated into seats in representative institutions. As such, their impact
on the whole range of elements that make up the political character of a society is
quite considerable. The behaviour of political parties, governments, or candidates for
elected office will, for example, in large measure be conditioned by the shape of an
electoral system.

More importantly, the way in which an electoral system translates votes into seats
may influence the degree of public support for the democratic system itself. If, for
example, citizens do not perceive that their preferences are adequately reflected in
the legislature following an election, their support for the system in general is likely to
decline. Turnout during election will drop, respect for politicians and elected
representatives will not be seen as fully legitimate. The subject of electoral systems
is, or ought, therefore to be of central interest to anyone concerned with the operation
of democratic systems.

It is therefore not surprising that the debate on electoral system has become central
during the constitutional review. The submissions received on electoral systems
during preliminary consultations with respect to parliamentary elections are two-fold.

3
There is a view that upholds the retention of the current system. The main reason for
the position is that the current system is easy and cheap to administer and has
worked well for Malawi in the past.

The other school of thought is that Malawi should adopt the proportional
representation system. This group argues that this system is the best mainly
because as the system is, no votes are wasted as each vote is taken into account in
determining the percentage of a national vote scored by each party. It is further
argued that this system is more democratic and more representative as it gives small
parties and vulnerable groups an opportunity to be represented in Parliament.

On presidential elections, some submissions have suggested that the President

should be elected by absolute majority of the total votes cast. Implicitly, the
argument suggests a second ballot where this level of majority is not achieved at first
ballot or alternative (preferential) voting in order to achieve this absolute majority. It
is argued that although this seems expensive, it is a necessary evil as it will ensure
that the President was voted for by the majority of Malawians. The other suggestion
is that Malawi should move to parliamentary system of government where the party
with the highest number of seats in parliament elects a President. In their argument,
they go on to say that if a President is elected by the party with the highest number of
seats in Parliament, the President would be assured of support in Parliament and he
or she would be nationally acceptable in the eyes of Malawians.

There are however some people that hold a middle position. Their submission is that
the current position of first past the post for presidential election be maintained.
However, to ensure legitimacy, a winning President must exude national acceptance
by winning a certain percentage of votes in all the regions or in a majority or a
prescribed number of districts.

Other sectors seem contented with the current position and they do not see why a
system that has proved effective in placing a President in office should be changed.

……………

CHAPTER II

2.0 ELECTORAL SYSTEMS: AN OVERVIEW

Electoral systems currently in use in representative democracies can be divided into

two basic kinds:

(a) Majoritarian systems; and (b) Proportional representation systems.

2.1 Majoritarian Systems

In majoritarian systems, winning candidates are those having attracted the

most votes in a particular election. Majoritarian systems differ according to
the kinds of majorities that winners must achieve. Basically, there are two
kinds of majorities: absolute and simple.

4
2.1.1 Absolute Majority

The system seeks to ensure that the winning candidate has the support of an
absolute majority (50+) of the voters in his or her area. There are essentially
two ways of achieving this outcome.

First, through alternative voting, where voters are required to rank their
preferences on their ballots. Voters write number 1 beside their first choice
candidate, 2 beside the second and so on. If, when the ballots are tallied, no
candidate gets an absolute majority after counting the first preferences, the
candidate with the least votes is eliminated and his or her ballots are
redistributed according to the second choice. This process continues until a
winner emerges with more than half of the total votes.

……

Second, absolute majority is achieved through Two-Ballot System. Under this

system, balloting may take place in two stages. During the first stage, voters
have a choice among several candidates, only one of whom they may vote
for. If nobody manages to get an absolute majority from this first round voting,
a second ballot is held between the two candidates with the best showing.

2.1.2 Simple Majority

Commonly known as first past the post, simple majority systems are
commonly found in countries that have inherited elements of the British
parliamentary system. Under the system, a winner need only attract the
largest number of votes cast.

2.2 Proportional Representation

The second major category of electoral system is known as Proportional

Representation [or PR]. Proportional representation systems are specifically
designed to allocate seats in proportion to votes, in the hope that assemblies
or governments will accurately reflect the present preferences of the
electorate.

The basic rationale underlying the system is that all voters deserve
representation and that majority rule is not necessarily the best. In other
words, the right to fair representation entails that all political groups in society
deserve to be represented in representative institutions in proportion to their
strength in the electorate.

That, in a nutshell, is how a proportional representation system works. But,

although proportional representation systems have the same goals of
ensuring that all voters receive some representation and that all groups are
represented fairly, various systems do have different ways of achieving those

5
objectives. Therefore, it is worthwhile to see how different kinds of
proportional representation work in practice.

2.2.1 Party List Voting

Party list systems are by far the most common form of proportional
representation. As the name suggests, each party puts up a list of candidates
equal to the number of seats in Parliament. On the ballot, voters indicate their
preference for a particular party and the parties then receive seats in
proportion to their share of the vote.

There are two types of party list systems: Closed and open list. In a closed
list, parties submit their lists of candidates in order of priority. Seats are then
allocated to each party in order of the submitted list. For instance, if a party
wins 40% of the national vote and if this 40% translates to 20 seats, then the
first 20 candidates on the party list will be selected. In other words, it is the
party that decides who should go to Parliament and voters have no say on it.
In an open list however, voters on top of voting for the party, are also given a
chance of voting for a candidate from the party list. Voters are presented with
un ordered or random lists of candidates chosen in party primaries. In this
system voters cannot vote for a party directly, but must cast a vote for an
individual candidate. This vote counts for the candidate as well as the party.
In this way, the order of the final list of party candidates depends on the
number of votes won by each candidate. The most popular candidates rise to
the top of the list and have a better chance of being elected.

Noteworthy is that in party list voting, seat allocation is based on a formula a

particular jurisdiction would want to adopt. Various formulas do exist but the
most common and simplest seat allocation formula is the one called the
―largest remainder formula‖. The formula works by calculating a quota, which
is determined by taking the total number of valid votes and dividing this by the
number of seats in a particular representative institution. The quota is then
divided into the vote that each party receives and the party wins one seat for
each whole number produced.

ILLUSTRATION OF LARGEST REMAINDER FORMULA

Assume that 200,000 votes were cast in a country of 20 seats. Secondly,

assume that three were there parties sharing the votes as follows-

Party A - 115,000

Party B - 49,000

Party C - 36,000

6
First Step: Calculate the quota - 200,000 ÷ 20 = 10,000

Second Step: First seat allocation

Party A - 115,000 ÷ 10,000 = 11 seats with a remainder of 5,000 votes

Party B - 49,000 ÷ 10,000 = 4 seats with a remainder of 9,000 votes

Party C - 36,000 ÷ 10,000 = 3 seats with a remainder of 6,000 votes Third

Step:

Second seat allocation

Number of seats occupied = 18 seats

Number of seats remaining = 2 seats

Remainder of votes

Party A - 5,000 Party B - 9,000 Party C - 6,000

Party B and C have the largest remainders they will therefore get the two
seats.

Total number of seats

Party A - 11 seats

Party B - 5 seats

Party C - 4 seats

2.3 Mixed-Member proportional representation and parallel voting

Some jurisdictions have chosen to use a combination of majoritarian and

proportional representation systems in order to achieve the benefits of both
systems. In such jurisdictions, a particular number, say for instance, half of
the members of the legislature are elected using majority voting and the other
half by proportional representation.

The system works by asking voters to cast votes on a double ballot. First, on
one part of the ballot, they vote for a constituency representative to determine
a candidate to represent that particular constituency in the legislature on
majority basis. On the other part of the ballot paper, voters indicate their
choice of a party and the other half of the seats in the legislature are filled
from a list of candidates chosen by their parties.

Illustration of allocation of seats in mixed member systems

In a Parliament of 100 seats, assume Party A win 30 seats by majority voting.

Again, assume that Party A got 60% of the national votes and further assume

7
 that this 60% translates to 60 seats. Seat allocation will therefore be 30 seats
from the majority voting plus 30 seats from the party list.

Although some Members are elected by majority voting the total number of
seats allocated to a particular party in mixed –member proportional
representation, is still largely determined by the percentage of the national
vote a particular party gets. In parallel voting however, electors participate in
two separate elections using different systems and results of one system do
not affect the results of the other system. The most common parallel voting is
the supplementary-member system, which combines first past the past with
proportional representation. Under the system, a proportion of seats are filled
with fast past the post system and the remainder with proportional
representation. In our illustration for example, party A will get 33 votes from
fast past the post voting and 30 votes, which is 60 percent of 50 seats[ not
100]. That is why the system is called parallel voting because the results from
first past the post system are independent of the results from the proportional
representation system.

- End of Attachment 1 –

Question 1
Summarise the content of Attachment 1 in not more than 250 words. (7 Marks)

Question 2
In your own words, describe the three different views that the Law Commission
identified in the submissions [it] received on electoral systems during preliminary
consultations concerning parliamentary elections. (5 Marks)

Question 3
What do you understand by the following quotation from the extract:
The behaviour of political parties, the government and candidates for
elected office will for example in large measure be conditioned by the
shape of the electoral system. (5 Marks)

Question 4
Read the following text and answer the questions that follow
The Teaching of Literature
Is there, then, no better way? Yes there is a better way: for the French have it,
with their language and literature. In France, as Matthew Arnold noted, a
generation ago, the ordinary journey-man work of literature is done far better
and more conscientiously than with us. In France a man feels it almost a
8
 personal stain to write even on a police-order anything so derogatory to the
tradition of his language as our Cabinet Ministers read out as answers to our
House of' Commons. I am told that many a Maire in a small provincial town in
N.E. France, even when overwhelmed with the sufferings of his town-folk, has
truly felt the iron enter into his soul on being forced to sign a document written
out for him in the invaders French.
Cannot we treat our noble inheritance of literature and language as
scrupulously, and with as high a sense of their appertaining to our national
honour, as a Frenchman cherishes his language, his literature? Cannot we
study to leave our inheritance - as the old Athenian put it temperately, ‗not
worse but a little better than we found it‘?
I think we can and should. I shall close to-day, Gentlemen, with the most
modest of perorations. In my first lecture before you, in January 1913, I
quoted to you the artist in Don Quixote who, being asked what animal he was
painting, answered diffidently ‗That is as it may turn out‘.
The teaching of our language and literature is, after all, a new thing and still
experimental. The main tenets of those who, aware of this, have worked on
the scheme for a School of English in Cambridge, the scheme recently
passed by your Senate and henceforth to be in operation, are three:
The first. That literature cannot be divorced from life: that (for example) you
cannot understand Chaucer aright, unless you have the background, unless
you know the kind of men for whom Chaucer wrote and the kind of men whom
he made speak; that is the national side with which all our literature is
concerned.
The second. Literature being so personal a thing, you cannot understand it
until you have some personal understanding of the men who wrote it. Donne
is Donne; Swift, Swift; Pope, Pope; Johnson, Johnson; Goldsmith, Goldsmith;
Charles Lamb, Charles Lamb; Carlyle, Carlyle. Until you have grasped those
men, as men, you cannot grasp their writings. That is the personal side of
literary study, and as necessary as the other.
The third. That the writing and speaking of English is a living art, to be
practiced and (if it may be) improved. That what these great men have done is
to hand us a grand patrimony; that they lived to support us through the trial we
are now enduring, and to carry us through to great days to come. So shall our
sons, now fighting in France, have a language ready for the land they shall
recreate and repeople.
4.1 Which of the following is an assertion of fact rather than opinion?
(2 Marks)

(a) ‗Yes there is a better way‘

(b) ‗as Matthew Arnold noted‘
(c) ‗literature cannot be divorced from life‘
(d) ‗you cannot understand it until you have some personal understanding
of the men who wrote it‘
(e) ‗what these great men have done is to hand us a grand patrimony‘

9
4.2 This passage is an extract from a speech. To whom do you think it was
originally delivered? (2 Marks)

(a) Students
(b) Parents
(c) Politicians
(d) Lecturers
(e) Writers

4.3 Which of the following does the writer imply but not state? (2 Marks)

(a) The teaching of literature is new.

(b) To understand literature properly you need to know about the people
who wrote it.
(c) Literature is created only by men.
(d) We ought to emulate the French attitude to their language.
(e) To understand literature properly you need to understand the context in
which it was written.

4.4 All of the following are reasons for the comparison with French language
and literature except … (2 Marks)

(a) The French language is purer than English

(b) The French respect the traditions of their language
(c) The French cherish their language
(d) The French relate their language and literature to national honour
(e) French literature is generally better written than English literature

10
SECTION C: REASONING AND ANALYTICAL SKILLS

Instructions

1. Ensure that there are FOUR questions in this Section.

2. You are required to answer all the FOUR questions.

3. The marks for each question are indicated against each question.

4. Begin your answer to each question on a separate answer sheet, clearly

marking on each answer sheet your Examination Number Only.

5. Read the document marked ATTACHMENT 2 below before attempting to

answer questions 1 - 3 in this section.

ATTACHMENT 2
Do Criminal Laws Deter Crime? Deterrence Theory in Criminal Justice Policy:
A Primer

Ben Johnson, Legislative Analyst, January 2019

(available at https://www.house.leg.state.mn.us/hrd/pubs/deterrence.pdf)

Introduction
One of the primary responsibilities of a government is to protect its citizens
from crime but preventing crime can take many forms. There is evidence that
crime is disproportionately concentrated in economically distressed areas and
that reducing poverty can also reduce crime. Addressing mental illness can
also lower crime rates. There is an undisputed link between addiction and
crime and providing chemical dependency treatment is particularly effective at
reducing property crime rates. The most common method of addressing
crime, though, is through enforcement and punishment.

The government identifies actions it wants to prohibit—assault, selling drugs,

driving while intoxicated, speeding—and establishes a consequence for
people who take those actions. Consequences exist for several reasons: they
punish dangerous behavior, require some form of repayment to society,
incapacitate individuals who are seen as likely to commit other offenses, and
send the message that society has certain values, morals, or expectations.

Several theories of public safety support these policy methods of enforcing

laws and punishing offenders. The theory of incapacitation suggests that

11
holding certain individuals in jail or prison will prevent those individuals from
committing new crimes. Rehabilitation theories suggest that directing
offenders to certain treatment or training programs will change that individual
and keep him or her from committing new offenses. Retributive theories
suggest that a person who makes an intentional decision to violate the law
should be punished for that decision so that the person can pay a debt to
society and then return with a blank slate. Denunciation theory combines
several other theories and holds that punishing someone publicly will prevent
others from committing the offense due to the stigma of the offense, and will
also serve as a form of retribution. Each of those theories can support criminal
justice policies and serve as a valid lens through which to view policies. But
legislators often identify another reason to justify changes to criminal law—
deterrence.

Deterrence is the theory that criminal penalties do not just punish violators,
but also discourage other people from committing similar offenses. Many
people point to the need to deter criminal actions after a high-profile incident
in which an offender is seen to have received a light sentence. Some argue
that a tougher sentence would have prevented the tragedy and can prevent a
similar tragedy from taking place in the future.

But does the creation of a new crime, or the increase in an existing penalty,
deter people from committing crimes? The answer is complex. Legislators
seeking to prevent or reduce crime through enforcement and punishment
have a variety of policy options to consider. Over the last fifty years, academic
studies have examined different techniques from a variety of angles.
Legislators may choose to draw on this information to craft effective policies,
or assess the likely deterrent effect of proposed legislation. This publication
focuses on the theory of general deterrence by explaining the theoretical
basis of deterrence theory, reviewing academic studies, and providing a
summary of what legislators can consider if deterrence is a goal.

The Historical Roots of Deterrence Theory

The roots of modern deterrence theory stretch to the time when the United
States was coming into existence. An Italian philosopher and economist,
Ceasare Beccaria, wrote Essay on Crimes and Punishments in 1764 and
Jeremy Bentham, the English philosopher and reformer, wrote An Introduction
to the Principles of Morals and Legislation (introduction to the Principles) in
1781.

Beccaria wrote that laws exist to allow a united society, free from the threat of
war and chaos. He assumed that each individual member of this society will
―always endeavour to take away from the mass, not only his own portion, but
to encroach on that of others.‖ Laws were necessary, therefore, and a

12
violation of laws should result in punishment whose purpose ―is no other, than
to prevent others from committing the like offence.‖ He argued that
punishment must be proportionate to the crime committed because, if two
crimes have an equal punishment, ―there is nothing to deter men from
committing the greater‖ when that crime carries a greater advantage. Beccaria
also emphasized that punishment should occur as immediately after the
commission of a crime as possible and added that crimes ―are more
effectually prevented by the certainty, than the severity of
punishment.‖10Bentham‘s theories were similar. He began from the
proposition that humans are governed by pain and pleasure. He argued that
every action a person takes is to increase happiness. This principle of utility
held that people act to either produce advantage or prevent pain or
unhappiness. The value of a pleasure or pain depends on its intensity,
duration, certainty, and nearness.

Both theories of human behaviour suggested that the desire to seek pleasure
and increase one‘s own position by taking more than a fair share drives
human actions. But, under the theory that action is rational, people can be
deterred from harming others by establishing punishments for certain acts.
Beccaria and Bentham expected potential criminals to compare the expected
benefit of committing a crime with the benefit of not committing a crime. In
short, the theory held that if you increase the cost of committing a crime
enough, people will not commit the crime.

A Modern Makeover
Deterrence theory received a modern makeover in 1968 when Gary Becker
published Crime and Punishment: An Economic Approach. Becker, a
professor of economics and sociology at the University of Chicago, argued
that understanding criminal behaviour did not depend on whether individuals
had properly developed social standards, psychological inadequacies, or
special inherited traits. Rather, he suggested, criminal behaviour came down
to an economic theory of choice: some individuals become criminals because
their individual benefits and costs are different from those of the noncriminal,
and not because the person has different basic motivations. Becker
emphasized that an increase in the likelihood of apprehension would have a
greater impact on the number of offenses than an increase in punishment. He
also noted that making legal activities more attractive, such as an increase in
legal income, would shift the balance and make it more likely that a person
would not commit a crime.

This model of deterrence is known as the ―economic model of rational

deterrence.‖ Under the theory, since criminal acts are the result of a rational,
conscious decision, preventing crime involves finding the balance between
increasing the cost of crime and creating an expensive police state that

13
eliminates personal freedom. Once the cost of committing an offense is too
high, criminals will not commit the offense. The theory assumes that there is
no difference between criminal and non-criminals, other than their
assessment of the costs and benefits of committing crimes.

The Three Components of Deterrence Theory: Certainty,

Celerity, and Severity
The works of Beccaria, Bentham, and Becker led to a theory of criminal
deterrence involving a three-pronged approach in which certainty, celerity,
and severity of punishment work together to increase the cost of an action so
that a rational person will determine that the cost outweighs the benefit.

Certainty applies to the likelihood of being caught. The threat of a severe

punishment is not effective if there is no possibility of ever being caught.

Celerity applies to the speed of a consequence. A punishment imposed

immediately after an offense is more effective than one that is imposed years
after the offense.

Severity of punishment is a necessary component since a rational person

might commit a crime that brings a benefit even if punishment is swift and
sure when the punishment is insignificant. In addition, the punishment serves
as an example to others in society so that everyone is aware that a certain
action is unacceptable.

Under the economic theory of deterrence, an increase in the cost of crime

should deter people from committing the crime, and there is evidence that
individuals who believe they are likely to be arrested and punished are less
likely to commit a crime than those who do not expect to be captured or
punished.19 To increase the cost, the government can increase the likelihood
that a person will be caught, the speed with which a person receives a
punishment, or the severity of that punishment. Determining the extent to
which these changes actually deter crime involves testing the assumption that
the crime rate will be lower if there is an increase in the certainty, celerity, or
severity of legal punishment.

- End of Attachment 2 –

14
Question 1
Compare and contrast the incapacitation and rehabilitation theories as described in
the article. (5 Marks)

Question 2
Discuss the extent to which Cesare Becarria‘s identification of a single aim of
criminal punishment is narrower in scope than the theories of public safety which, in
his opinion, support policy methods of enforcing laws and punishing offenders.
(6 Marks)

Question 3
Describe the relationship between the deterrence theory and the proposition by
Bentham that humans are governed by pain and pleasure. (5 Marks)

Question 4
A University library budget committee must reduce exactly five of eight areas of
expenditure—G, L, M, N, P, R, S, and W—in accordance with the following
conditions:

 If both G and S are reduced, W is also reduced.

 If N is reduced, neither R nor S is reduced.
 If P is reduced, L is not reduced.
 Of the three areas L, M, and R, exactly two are reduced.

4.1 Which one of the following could be a complete and accurate list of the areas
of expenditure reduced by the committee? (3 Marks)

(A) G, L, M, N, W
(B) G, L, M, P, W
(C) G, M, N, R, W
(D) G, M, P, R, S
(E) L, M, R, S, W

15
4.2 If W is reduced, which one of the following could be a complete and accurate
list of the four other areas of expenditure to be reduced? (3 Marks)

(A) G, M, P, S
(B) L, M, N, R
(C) L, M, P, S
(D) M, N, P, S
(E) M, P, R, S

4.3 If P is reduced, which one of the following is a pair of areas of expenditure

both of which must be reduced? (3 Marks)

(A) G, M
(B) M, R
(C) N, R
(D) R, S
(E) S, W

16
SECTION D: CIVIC AWARENESS

Instructions:

1. Ensure that there are FOUR questions in this Section.

2. You are required to answer all FOUR questions.

3. The marks for each question are indicated against each question.

4. Begin your answer to each question on a separate answer sheet, clearly

marking on each answer sheet your Examination Number Only.

Question 1
Describe the nature and current status of the ―Malawi-Tanzania Lake Boundary
Dispute.‖ (5 Marks)

Question 2
On 21 May 2019, Malawians voted in tripartite elections whose results were
announced by the Malawi Electoral Commission on 23 May 2019. Since then, a
number of entities which were dissatisfied with the conduct of the elections have
taken the matter to court for a resolution.

(a) Identify the entity/entities which has/have applied to court for a resolution and
those who are opposing the application.

(b) Identify three alliances/coalition agreements that were formed among political
parties during the elections and describe their current status.
(5 Marks)

Question 3
Propose three measures whose implementation would, in your opinion, protect
people with albinism in Malawi from targeted criminal attacks, including murder and
mutilation. (5 Marks)

Question 4
Discuss any three international situations which pose a threat to world peace and
security. (10 Marks)

END OF QUESTION PAPER

17