Government through the Ministry of Natural Resources, Energy and Mining, has commenced the process of reversing recent amendments to the Energy Regulation Act of 2004 and the Liquid Fuels and Gas (Production and Supply) Act, 2024, Weekend Nation has learnt.
Ministry of Natural Resources, Energy and Mining Spokesperson Joan Thaundi explained in a WhatsApp response that her ministry had sought legal guidance from the Justice Ministry following President Peter Mutharika’s State opening address of the 52nd Session of Parliament in which he said his administration would abandon the Government-to-Government (G-to-G) System for the procurement of fuel and revert to the open tender system.
She said: “We have written the Ministry of Justice and Constitutional Affairs for guidance following the President’s speech in Parliament where he mentioned that the country will be procuring fuel through the open tender system. But since G-to-G is law, it has to be reviewed.’’
The bills for the amendments to these two Acts which were passed by Parliament on December 3 2024 and signed into law by former President Lazarus Chakwera on December 21 2024, officially took effect on January 14 2025.
The amendments to these laws significantly changed fuel procurement procedures, allowing the Minister of Energy to appoint agents or State entities to import fuel without adhering to the oversight mechanisms prescribed in the Public Procurement and Disposal of Assets (PPDA) Act of 2017.
The legislations were enacted despite reservations from opposition parties, which voiced concerns over the potential for abuse and the erosion of oversight.
Specifically, the then Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) spokesperson on legal issues in Parliament Bright Msaka and the then spokesperson for the United Democratic Front (UDF) in the House Esther Jolobala warned that the amendments effectively placed the Minister above the law, opening opportunities for corruption and financial abuse.
However, the then minister of Energy Ibrahim Matola defended the reforms, saying they would improve fuel imports by cutting out intermediaries and establishing direct links with refineries in countries such as Saudi Arabia, Oman, and Bahrain to reduce fuel costs.
In response to inquiries about the proposal to have the laws reversed, spokesperson for the Ministry of Justice and Constitutional Affairs, Frank Namangale citing attorney-client confidentiality, refused to disclose further details.
He explained: “We acknowledge receipt of your inquiry regarding the amendments to the Energy Regulation Act of 2004 and Liquid Fuels Gas Act. Please be advised that, due to attorney-client confidentiality, we are not at liberty to disclose any information relating to the matters you have raised. Our client, assuming such matters are indeed before us, is best placed to provide the information directly or to instruct us to share it should they so wish.’’
Governance expert Willy Kambwandira shared the concerns raised by Msaka and Jolobala on the potential for abuse and corruption that the new legislation was introducing in the procurement of fuel.
He also raised alarm over the secrecy and lack of transparency surrounding the G-to-G contracts.
“These deals were often signed in secrecy, bypassing public scrutiny and oversight institutions like the PPDA. Such practices heighten risks of corruption, inflated costs and abuse of authority,” he said.
He further argued that the government’s move to terminate G-to-G contracts and revert to open tendering is justified, given the widespread inefficiencies, allegations of misconduct and potential for State capture linked to the previous contracts.
“Continuing with the G-to-G deals exposes the country to long-term liabilities and grossly violates the principles of transparency and accountability. Since the G-to-G arrangements are enshrined in the Liquid Fuels and Gas Act, the government cannot abandon it through a Presidential directive alone as acting outside the law would undermine the rule of law.
“Otherwise without more details it is our conclusion that the G-to-G deals were being used as a conduit for siphoning public funds rather than for serving the public interest under the guise of sovereign agreements and must be reversed,” he added.
