Malawi Revenue Authority (MRA) has come under the spotlight over its intention to award security services contracts to three firms, including one owned by Minister of State Alfred Gangata, raising legal and ethical concerns.
In an intention to award contracts dated December 26 2025, MRA said it plans to award the collective K5.4 billion contracts to Master Security Services, Kamu Guard Services and Iringa Security Services.
MRA is set to offer Gangata’s firm, Master Security, contracts worth K3.3 billion for guarding services despite being the subject of MRA-initiated legal proceedings around tax issues.
The deals include a K1.2 billion contract for MRA cluster in Blantyre and another K2.1 billion in the Central Region.
On the other hand, Kamu Guard Services’ prospective contract is pegged at K897 million for the South and Eastern clusters while Iringa Security Services is to cover the Northern Cluster at K1.14 billion.
MRA Commissioner General Felix Tambulasi yesterday referred The Nation to MRA spokesperson Wilma Chalulu.
Chalulu said the notice of award is meant to inform bidders and the public of the public tax collector’s intention to offer the contracts, in accordance with Public Procurement and Disposal of Assets (PPDA) Act requirements.
In a written response, she said no contract has been awarded as the notice forms part of the procurement and evaluation process.
Said Chalulu: “The publication of the intention to award is a deliberate transparency measure intended to provide an opportunity for any bidders who may have concerns or noted irregularities in the process to come forward, for MRA to address before the contracts are formally awarded.
“The procurement was conducted through open tender national competitive bidding. The tender was duly advertised in two newspapers of national circulation on 12 November 2025 and ran for a period of three weeks.”
She said MRA follows established procurement guidelines in all its procurement activities and this process is being undertaken in line with its approved procurement plan and operational requirements.
But in separate interviews yesterday, pundits particularly queried why MRA was intending to offer a contract to Master Security when the authority was in a legal battle with Gangata for alleged forgery of tax clearance certificates for the same company.
According to the charge sheet in that case, Gangata, between July 2017 and June 2018, allegedly prepared and used a falsified tax clearance certificate number MRA/MTO-LIL/000952 bearing the name Alfred Ruwani Gangata trading as Master Security in the bidding process for a contract at Lilongwe University of Agriculture and Natural Resources.
Coincidentally, in that case, Gangata was being represented by Tambulasi who was a private practice lawyer until his appointment as MRA Commissioner General in October this year, but had previously also served as MRA head of legal services and corporate services.
Private practice lawyer Benedicto Kondowe in an interview yesterday argued that based on Section 75(2f) of the PPDA Act, a government entity cannot enter into a contract with any bidder who is the subject of legal proceedings.
He said: “If a bidder is the subject of ongoing legal proceedings, particularly involving fraud or tax integrity, an MDA [ministry, department and agency] is barred from contracting with that bidder. In this context, the intention to award a contract to Master Security Services raises serious questions about compliance, due diligence and respect for the law.
“At best, it suggests weak or selective due diligence; at worst, it points to a deliberate circumvention of procurement safeguards. Either scenario undermines the credibility of the procurement process and exposes the procuring entity to legal challenge.”
Kondowe added that the present scenario also suggests, at a minimum, failure to convincingly demonstrate compliance with the spirit of Section 88(5) of the Constitution, which is to protect the integrity of public office and prevent private gain from public power.
Section 88(5) of the Constitution prohibits the President and members of the Cabinet from using “their respective offices for personal gain or place themselves in a situation where their material interests conflict with the responsibilities and duties of their offices”.
In a separate interview, National Anti-Corruption Alliance chairperson Michael Kaiyatsa said the Gangata case creates a strong perception of impropriety, even if the procurement process appears procedurally correct on paper.
“The concern is compounded by the fact that one of the lawyers who represented the accused in that case is now the Commissioner General of MRA. Even if that individual has formally recused themselves from the procurement decision, the circumstances create a reasonable apprehension of bias or undue influence,” he said.
From the accountability point of view, Centre for Social Accountability and Transparency executive director Willy Kambwandira expressed concern with the amount involved, saying the contracts sums were “excessive, deeply troubling and indefensible, especially for a country facing fiscal stress and unmet social needs”.
“This reflects skewed priorities and raises questions about value for money. Again, awarding such lucrative security contracts to companies linked to senior government officials is a textbook conflict of interest whether or not procurement rules were followed on paper,” he said.
Governance pundit George Chaima said in the best interest of upholding the high level of integrity and credibility of MRA, it would have been important for MRA to issue a statement on the matter concerning the forgery case and its clearance.
The PPDA Act provides that after publication of notice for intention of award of contract the public should give feedback within 21 days.
Gangata did not respond to our calls and the questions sent to him.
