President Peter Mutharika and Speaker of Parliament Sameer Suleman appear to have found a way out of the impasse that followed the Speaker’s decision to establish 12 joint committees to investigate governance concerns in public institutions.
The two met at Kamuzu Palace on Saturday and, according to Parliament, held a “very cordial discussion” in which they reaffirmed their respect for the separation of powers among the Executive, Legislature and Judiciary. Parliament has since indicated that the 12 joint committees will not proceed.
Kudos to APM and the Speaker for resolving their differences through dialogue. The dispute had escalated from a war of words into a constitutional controversy and eventually a court battle.
On face value, therefore, the meeting should help restore a healthy working relationship between the Executive and Legislature.
But before we close that chapter and celebrate the truce, there is an important question that remains unanswered: What happens to the governance problems that prompted the proposed investigations in the first place?
The proposed inquiries were supposed to investigate concerns involving the National Oil Company of Malawi (Nocma), Blantyre Water Board (BWB), electricity utilities, pension administration, the Salima-Lilongwe Water Supply Project, Immigration and alleged preferential treatment of foreign transporters in fuel transportation, among others.
Those concerns have not disappeared simply because the President and Speaker have reconciled.
Granted, there were legitimate questions about whether the Speaker could unilaterally constitute the committees. The Executive argued that the power rests with Parliament rather than the Speaker, while the dispute is also before the courts.
The Malawi Law Society has joined the case as amicus curiae, saying it raises important constitutional questions concerning separation of powers and Parliament’s oversight mandate.
But resolving that procedural dispute should not resolve the underlying accountability questions by default.
In fact, there is a bigger issue.
Malawi is not short of inquiries, audits and reports identifying weaknesses in public institutions. Parliament itself does not have an impressive record of bringing some of its investigations to a timely conclusion.
The Public Accounts Committee investigation into the Public Service Pension Trust Fund’s acquisition of Amaryllis Hotel was completed last week, but it is still not clear whether the inquiry produced information that would materially affect whether the alleged culprits behind the controversial deal.
Parliament’s ad hoc inquiry into the June 2024 plane crash also remains incomplete.
That inquiry was established because Parliament believed previous investigations contained gaps. The ultimate test, however, should be whether it produces credible and actionable information that previous investigations did not provide.
Otherwise, we risk confusing more investigations with greater accountability.
The same applies to State-owned enterprises (SOEs).
The World Bank’s 2025 Public Finance Review has already diagnosed many of their problems, including weak governance, fragmented oversight, poor performance monitoring and uneven implementation of corporate governance requirements.
It has also prescribed solutions, including professional and independent boards, performance contracts, stronger internal controls, timely audited financial statements, enterprise risk management and improved government oversight.
The government has already started implementing some reforms, including strengthening SOE monitoring systems and introducing tools to assess financial risks.
Perhaps, Parliament should now concentrate on establishing whether these reforms are actually working.
Instead of another round of inquiries diagnosing familiar problems, relevant parliamentary committees can establish which recommendations the government has implemented, which remain outstanding, why implementation has stalled and who should be held accountable.
The President and Speaker may have resolved their impasse, and that is welcome.
But Capital Hill and Parliament should be well aware that cordial relations between the two institutions will mean little if the governance concerns that triggered the confrontation are simply forgotten.
Twelve committees have disappeared.
The questions they were supposed to answer should not disappear with them.
