Malawi has always been a country of surprises. We have had fuel disappear without vehicles moving, maize disappear without people eating it, and money disappear without anyone touching it. Now, if reports are accurate, we have discovered a new constitutional innovation: a Cabinet meeting chaired by the Second Vice-President while the First Vice-President was present at her office in the same city, but, apparently, not even invited to the Cabinet meeting.
If this is what really happened, someone deserves an award for finding a new way to interpret the Constitution.
The First Vice-President reportedly learnt about the meeting the same way ordinary Malawians learn about many government decisions—after they have already happened.
That is rather awkward.
One would have thought that in any organisation, if the chief executive is away, the deputy naturally steps in. That is why companies have deputy chief executives. It is why schools have deputy head teachers. Even football teams have vice-captains who take over when the captain is unavailable.
The irony is delicious. Why have a First Vice-President if the Second can simply leapfrog the position? It resembles a supermarket queue where someone suddenly appears at the front claiming they were there all along. One almost feels sorry for protocol officers. Perhaps Cabinet needs a seating chart showing three things: constitutional position, actual position and position occupied today—with flow charts and a consultant to explain it all.
The incident, if accurately reported, is not merely about personalities. It is about institutions.
Governments are supposed to work according to clear rules, not by improvising. Cabinet meetings are not family WhatsApp groups where people attend simply because someone remembered to forward the invitation. They are among the Executive’s most important decision-making meetings. Constitutional office holders should attend according to the law, established practice and clear procedures—not according to some mysterious administrative system.
Naturally, defenders will argue that there were perfectly valid reasons.
Perhaps the First Vice-President was unavailable. Perhaps there were procedural considerations unknown to the public. Perhaps there was an innocent administrative explanation. Perhaps somebody simply forgot to send the invitation.
That last possibility, however, would itself be quite an achievement.
Forgetting to invite the First Vice-President to a Cabinet meeting is like forgetting to invite the goalkeeper to a football match and then claiming that the team has found a new way to defend.
If there is a perfectly reasonable explanation, government should provide it.
The public is not asking for classified intelligence. It is asking a basic question: Who was supposed to chair Cabinet, and why?
Silence, after all, is fertile soil for speculation. Politics already has enough conspiracy theories without adding constitutional hide-and-seek.
The episode also raises a practical question: Who actually runs Cabinet when the President is away?
Surely this cannot depend on who receives a text message.
Constitutions exist to provide a clear chain of authority when the President is away. A First Vice-President is not merely a grand title but a constitutional office with defined responsibilities.
Otherwise, Cabinet begins to resemble an airline boarding system:
Group A: President.
Group B: First Vice-President.
Group C: Second Vice-President.
“Please remain seated until your constitutional status is confirmed.”
Perhaps a government app could simply send notifications:
“You have been selected to chair Cabinet.”
Or:
“Sorry, your invitation has expired.”
At least everyone would know where they stand.
But beneath the humour is a serious issue.
The real casualty in such episodes is not merely protocol. It is public confidence.
Citizens expect constitutional offices to mean something. Titles should carry responsibilities exercised consistently, not selectively. The public should not have to consult political gossip, WhatsApp groups and anonymous sources to understand how its government is functioning.
Otherwise, we risk reducing constitutional hierarchy to decorative furniture—pleasant to look at but moved around whenever it suits the room.
And Malawi has enough decorative furniture already.
We have committees whose reports gather dust, institutions whose recommendations gather dust and strategies whose implementation plans gather even more dust. We do not need the Constitution joining the furniture department.
Democracy depends not only on elections but also on respect for institutions. Rules matter most when they are inconvenient. Malawi has no shortage of strategies, action plans, task forces, commissions and speeches promising change. What we sometimes lack is the simple part: following the rules.
That is why this Cabinet episode deserves an explanation. If the reports are wrong, government should say so. If they are correct, it should explain why.
Until that explanation emerges, however, Malawians are entitled to ask the obvious question:
If the President is absent and the First Vice-President is available, why is the Second Vice-President chairing Cabinet?
And if the First Vice-President does not step in when the President is absent, exactly what does “First” mean?
Because if “First” means first in the Constitution but second on the invitation list, Malawi may have stumbled upon another national innovation:
A Vice-President who is first by title, but only when somebody remembers to invite her.
