In recent weeks, Malawi has witnessed a wave of arrests involving politicians, former ministers who served in the previous MCP administration, and several other individuals linked to the alleged plunder of public resources and other offences. These arrests have generated mixed reactions. Some Malawians welcome them as a positive step in the fight against corruption. Others, however, fear that the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) government may be acting out of revenge, with arrests driven by political motives rather than justice.
Before going further, it is important to remind ourselves that Malawi has a history of new governments pursuing cases against officials from previous administrations. When the Tonse Alliance came into power, it spoke boldly about “draining the swamp.” However, that process did not fully deliver the results many had expected. While some politicians and individuals from the then-ruling DPP were arrested and charged with corruption and misuse of public resources, the broader promise remained largely unfulfilled.
What we are witnessing now, therefore, is not entirely new. The difference is that the earlier promise to “drain the swamp” did not materialise as expected. In a way, it appears that the DPP is now attempting to do what was previously promised, judging by the number of arrests made within a short period.
The key question, in my view, is not whether these arrests are happening, but how they are being carried out. In any democracy, credible allegations of wrongdoing must be addressed, and those responsible held accountable. Public office is a position of trust, and when that trust is abused, the law must take its course. No one should be above the law. In this sense, arrests are not wrong in themselves; they are a necessary part of ensuring accountability, provided they are conducted in accordance with the law.
However, t h e p roces s matters just as much as the outcome. Arrests must be based on thorough, professional i nves t igations. Ev i d ence should guide decisions—not revenge, emotions, rumours, or political pressure. When arrests are made without solid evidence, cases often collapse in court, as we have seen in the past. Such failures have cost the state large sums of taxpayers’ money in compensation and have undermined the credibility of anti-corruption efforts.
Public perception is another cr i t i c a l i ssue. Even when investigations are properly conducted, high-profile arrests often appear political to the public. This is especially true in a highly polarised country like Malawi, where politics is frequently viewed through regional or tribal lenses. In the current situation, some Malawians believe the arrests are politically motivated. Whether or not these perceptions are accurate, they cannot be ignored.
On t h e o t h e r ha n d , government has a responsibility to communicate clearly with citizens to reduce fear and speculation. Transparent , consistent communication helps reassure the public that due process is being followed. When communication is weak or unclear, it creates space for speculation, mistrust, and uncertainty.
At the same time, Malawi must continue strengthening its institutions so that the fight against corruption does not depend on which political party is in power. An independent j u d i c i a r y, p r o f e s s i o n a l investigative bodies, and strong, protected oversight institutions are the best safeguards against both corruption and political persecution. When institutions are strong and independent, cases stand or fall on evidence—not on who controls government.
In my view, these arrests should be seen as part of promoting accountability, informed by lessons learned from the past. They should not be perceived as an attempt by the DPP to settle political scores, but rather as an effort to uphold justice and prevent further plundering of public resources.
