‘PAC is satisfied with inquiry’
Some political commentators and members of the public have expressed dissatisfaction with the performance of Public Account Committee (PAC) of Parliament during its inquiry into the financial mismanagement in government. Our reporter Paida Mpaso speaks to PAC chairperson, Beatrice Mwangonde, who responds to the criticism in this interview.
Q
Is PAC proud of the way it has interrogated the people in connection to the cash-gate scandal, in particular the former budget director Paul Mphwiyo?
A
The Parliamentary Committee on Public Accounts is so far satisfied with the way it is conducting the inquiry into the financial mismanagement and misappropriation in government. This is because the approach is in conformity with the objectives and, indeed, the mandate of not only the Public Accounts Committee in particular, but also the National Assembly in general as an oversight arm of government. Mr. Paul Mphwiyo is but just an official among many public officials, public and private institutions; and representatives of civil society organisations who have appeared before the committee on the cashgate enquiry.
Q
But some members of the public feel that PAC had no clear agenda during the interrogation sessions. What do you say to that?
A
The way parliamentary committees work is a function of powers vested in them through various statutory instruments. These include the Constitution, Acts of Parliament, Standing Orders, Parliamentary Practices and Traditions; and sometimes specialised terms of reference on specific enquiries as the House may decide. The current inquiry is, therefore, no exception.
Q
But how do you react to the sentiments of discontent coming from the public?
A
As per the committee’s mandate and the House procedure, the position of the Public Accounts Committee on the cash-gate will be known upon presentation of its report to the House. It is, however, imperative for the public to know that the current exercise involves collection of information or data (e.g. public hearings), which is followed by analysis, interpretation, verification of facts and thereafter, appropriate recommendations are drawn.
Therefore, the public whom the Public Accounts Committee is representing in this scam should wait until a report on the inquiry is presented to the House. It is premature to concentrate on the process or means rather than wait for the outcome or results of the inquiry. I am promising the public that they will not be disappointed with the outcome.
Q How necessary was it for PAC to interrogate people on a matter that is already in court?
A
To start with, the 193 Members of Parliament are elected every five years by Malawians to represent their interests in general public policy realm. As you are aware, the public policy process in Malawi is traditionally spearheaded by the Executive. This includes policies in public finance. Therefore, the Public Accounts Committee is a committee of Parliament which is mandated by law to ensure financial accountability to the people by all public officers and public institutions. The inquiries which any committee of Parliament conducts are done on delegation from the entire House of 193 Members of Parliament.
Q
Was it in order for PAC members to give Paul Mphwiyo a standing ovation?
A
For the information of the general public, after every appearance of a public official or a controlling officer before the Public Accounts Committee, the chairperson prepares and reads out a summary of salient issues on the hearing that may require urgent attention by relevant government agencies even before a committee report is presented to the House. This is known as exit summary. Thereafter, members of the committee may add or indeed amend if need be. In that regard, as is the committee’s practice, as a way of expressing satisfaction (i.e. no addition or amendment to the summary) with an exit summary, members of the committee tend to clap hands after the chairperson has read out the summary. This is exactly what members also did after Mphwiyo exit summary.
Q
There are rumours that PAC wants to interview Paul Mphwiyo again, is this true?
A
If you recall, in my exit summary after the appearance of Mphwiyo before the committee, I reiterated that if the committee would see it necessary to re-interview him for clarification on certain aspects, he would be informed. This is the way the committee works, and as I have already said, usually, information gaps that require re-engagement with officials or stakeholders are known during the analysis of data collected. Therefore, what you are calling “rumour” is not rumour. It is a fact of what sometimes happens. Re-engagement with officials or stakeholders is the usual window which all committees of Parliament keep open in their enquiries.
Q
Do you feel that PAC will arrive at the desired recommendations needed to avoid a similar scam in the future?
A
The data compilation, analysis and interpretation are underway. Therefore, I do not want to pre-empt what the recommendations would be. However, at a glance, based on the vast and revealing information that came from officials and stakeholders, the committee is poised to come up with recommendations that will resonate with the scam’s colossal stature and its economic impact on Malawians.
