Bureaucracy has left resource-constrained Malawi Government helpless on how to use billions of kwacha from seized ill-gained assets, leaving them to rot while it struggles to provide most essential services. The situation is coming eight years since the enactment of the Financial Crimes Act in 2017.
Two administrations of Peter Mutharika and Lazarus Chakwera have failed to establish operational guidelines for the Confiscation Fund, which keeps ill-gotten gains, including money, houses and cars in excess of K3 billion. In 2023, the government promised to have the guidelines set up by July 2023 and later end of 2024. But, to date, there is nothing to show. The Nation yesterday contacted the key offices that
should be concerned with this crisis, notably Ministry of Justice and Constitutional Affairs, Ministry of Finance, Economic Planning and Decentralisation and the Financial Intelligence Authority (FIA), an agency overseeing the money and properties under the fund.
However, none of them showed a sense of urgency. Ins tead, they pushed responsibility onto one another.
FIA public relations officer Patience Lunda insisted that the development of the regulations is being led by ministries of Justice and Finance.
“The FIA has nothing new to say on the Confiscation Fund,” she said. On the other hand, Treasury spokesperson Williams Banda pushed back, saying: “Talk to the Financial Intelligence Authority.” Ministry of Justice and Constitutional Affairs spokesperson Frank Namangale said they are not at liberty to provide progress or timelines on regulations unless formally instructed to do so by the Ministry of Finance, their client. The developments come against a background of President Mutharika vowing to eliminate laissez-faire attitudes that are
costing taxpayers billions and undermining the fight against financial crimes. In a written response yes terday, anti -money laundering law expert Jai Banda said without clear guidelines,
fund management and utilisation might be opaque.
It may also lead to mistrust, misuse or misallocation of funds, he warned.
Banda said: “Unclear rules could lead to misuse or misallocation of funds meant for compensating victims or fighting financial crimes. Delay fuels perceptions of corruption or inefficiency, eroding public trust.
“This fund was expected to compensate victims of financial crimes and finance initiatives that enhance investigation and prosecution of financial crimes and asset recovery, but it seems this is not the case.”
National Advocacy Platform chairper son Benedicto Kondowe, who led the civil society during a meeting with the Ministry of Justice on the matter in 2023, said delays point to weak inter-agency coordination rather than any legal complexity.
He said passing the amendment without promptly operationalising the regulations defeats Parliament’s intent and weakens the credibility of Malawi’s anti-financial-crime framework. Kondowe, a private practice
lawyer, said: “The immediate effect is that over K3 billion in confiscated proceeds remains
idle instead of being deployed for public benefit, victim compensationand strengthening enforcement institutions.”
He urged the FIA and the two ministries to stop passing responsibility and jointly finalise the regulations without further delay, adding, administrative urgency and political will is key to operationalising the Fund.
On his part, National Anti- Corruption Alliance (Naca) national chairperson Michael Kaiyatsa said operationalising the fund is not optional, as it is a legal obligation and a critical test of Malawi’s seriousness in translating anti-corruption laws into real public benefit. Meanwhile, Centre for Social Transparency and Accountability executive director Willy Kambwandira said the delays are inexcusable and point
to institutional buck-passing rather than a genuine technical problem.
The fund currently holds slightly over K3 billion deposited by various authorities such as the Malawi Police Service, Anti-Corruption Bureau, Directorate of Public Prosecutions and FIA.
Apart from money, FIA also oversees property such as houses, plots and motor vehicles recovered from corruption suspects. Section 48 (2) of the Financial Crimes Act (2017) provides relevant courts with the mandate to order forfeiture or confiscation of tainted property of a convicted person
