When I wrote in this column some weeks ago that the treatment of First Vice-President Jane Ansah raised uncomfortable questions about women’s political representation, there was still considerable room for doubt.
The Vice-President appeared increasingly absent from important government business, while President Peter Mutharika repeatedly delegated responsibilities to Second Vice-President Enoch Chihana. But without knowing what was happening behind the doors of State House, it would have been unfair to conclude that the President was deliberately sidelining his deputy.
That has now changed.
In a recent interview with Zodiak Broadcasting Station, Ansah broke her silence, alleging that she had been excluded from Cabinet meetings and denied access to Cabinet papers. More significantly, she named Chief Secretary to the Government Justin Saidi as a key figure in what she described as “efforts to sideline her”.
Those are serious allegations. They do not, by themselves, prove that anyone deliberately set out to undermine the Vice-President. Ansah’s account still requires a response from those she has implicated. But it is no longer reasonable to dismiss the matter as mere public speculation.
At the heart of the dispute is a constitutional question. Section 92(1) provides that Cabinet consists of the President, the Vice-President and appointed ministers and deputy ministers. The Vice-President is therefore not an honorary appendage to the presidency, but a constitutionally recognised member of Cabinet.
The Constitution also provides an order for presiding over Cabinet meetings in the President’s temporary absence, with the First Vice-President preceding the Second Vice-President. This is why the argument cannot simply be reduced to whether the President has the power to delegate duties to either of his deputies.
Then there is the question of whether a Vice-President who remains in office and is constitutionally a member of Cabinet can be excluded from Cabinet business. That question deserves a clear legal answer, and a clear political explanation.
If Ansah’s account is accurate, who decided that she should not receive Cabinet papers or invitations? Was it an administrative decision, a directive from elsewhere in government, or something else entirely? These are questions that cannot be ignored.
The Chief Secretary is a senior public servant with responsibilities relating to Cabinet administration. Yet the President remains head of the Executive. That is why a dispute involving the First Vice-President and the machinery of government cannot be allowed to appear as merely an administrative misunderstanding.
Another issue concerns the voters who elected the two leaders together.
Ansah was not appointed Vice-President after the election. She was Mutharika’s running mate on the Democratic Progressive Party ticket which Malawians voted for in September 2025.
That does not diminish the President’s constitutional powers. Neither does it mean disagreements between a President and Vice-President are inherently improper. Political relationships, like all relationships, can become strained. But when such strain begins to affect the functioning of constitutional offices, Malawians are entitled to ask questions.
This is where the gender question I raised returns.
There is still no basis to conclude that Ansah is being sidelined because she is a woman. The emerging dispute appears to involve political and institutional tensions whose causes have not been fully established, but symbolism matters.
Malawi has spent years encouraging women to enter politics and aspire to the highest levels of leadership. When one of the country’s most senior elected women publicly says she is being excluded from government business, the country cannot simply shrug and move on.
Nor should this be treated solely as a personality clash. Malawi has repeatedly witnessed difficult relationships between presidents and their deputies. Perhaps the recurring problem lies less with individuals and more with an institutional framework that leaves too much dependent on political relationships and too little clearly defined in law and practice.
The current controversy therefore offers an opportunity to address those weaknesses.
If Ansah has misunderstood what happened, government should explain it. If Cabinet invitations were withheld for a legitimate reason, that reason should be made clear. And if there is a genuine disagreement over the constitutional role of the Vice-President, then Parliament, legal experts and, where necessary, the courts should settle it.
The question is no longer why Ansah appears to have been overlooked? It is whether Malawi has adequately protected the Vice President’s constitutional role from the uncertainties of political relationships.
That question is bigger than Ansah, Mutharika or Saidi. It requires a clear definition of how our democracy works, and whether constitutional offices remain meaningful even when the people occupying them fall out.
