Malawi questions Tanzania on port

Malawi has faulted Tanzania for embarking on a project to upgrade and expand Mbamba Bay Port on Lake Malawi without seeking consent as the lake boundary dispute between the two countries remains unresolved.

In a confidential diplomatic note dated February 2 2024, Lilongwe said it was not consulted for this project and has since asked Dodoma to halt construction works.

Reads the communication: “The Government of Malawi would like to express that embarking on such a project on Malawi’s territory without the country’s consent is irregular and illegal, and request that the project be halted until such necessary consultations and upon being given consent from the government of Malawi.”

The note further urges Tanzania to “desist from taking any action that may affect the dispute settlement process and affect Malawi’s historical and legal entitlement to the entire Lake Malawi”.

Malawi’s position comes after revelations published in Tanzania’s The Citizen newspaper in January this year that Tanzania Port Authority (TPA) had officially commenced the construction of the development of Mbamba Bay Port on what they call Lake Nyasa, in that country’s Ruvuma Region estimated to cost Sh80 billion (about K55 billion).

There is no indication if Tanzania has heeded the call from Malawi.

Tanzanian High Commissioner Balozi Agness Kayola has not responded to The Nation questionnaire sent via WhatsApp on Wednesday last week with a reminder on Saturday.

Questionnaires dispatched to Malawi’s ministries of Foreign Affairs, Transport and to Minister of Information and Digitisation Moses Kunkuyu, who is also chief government spokesperson, have not been responded to either.

According to The Citizen, the TPA signed a  $31.8 million construction contract for the port with China’s Xiamen Ongoing Construction Group in early January and the project is expected to be completed within 24 months.

In the lake border stand-off, Malawi asserts full ownership of the lake, except the south-eastern section in Mozambique while Tanzania is claiming the north-eastern half as its own.

Malawi bases its argument on a July 1 1890 treaty between Germany and Britain that maps the boundary between the two countries along the Tanzanian shores.

On the other hand, Tanzania is invoking the 1982 United Nations (UN) Convention on Law of the Sea that stipulates that in cases where nations are separated by water bodies, the boundary lies in the middle of the water source.

A team of mediators on the boundary dispute between Malawi, who included former South Africa and Botswana presidents Thabo Mbeki and Festus Mogae last met in Pretoria, South Africa in July 2017.

After the Pretoria dialogue, they were expected to come up with the much-anticipated resolutions and brief Presidents of the two countries. But there has been no update since.

The mediation team commenced its talks on the longstanding dispute in 2014 in Maputo, Mozambique, where governments of Malawi and Tanzania submitted their respective positions.

In her submission, Malawi showed the boundary was the shoreline of Lake Malawi as established by Article 1(2) of the 1890 Anglo-German Treaty while Tanzania claims the boundary is the median line of the lake based on the principle of customary international law.

The dispute got more intense during former president Bingu wa Mutharika’s tenure in 2011 when Malawi wanted to do oil exploration on the lake.

In a joint publication last month, security expert retired Malawi Defence Force (MDF) Brigadier General Marcel Chirwa and Dr. Colin Robinson observed that the border dispute is in limbo as Malawi focuses more energy on more pressing needs.

Reads the article titled ‘Lake Malawi or Lake Nyasa? Malawi-Tanzania border dispute slips into limbo’ published in Royal United Services Institute: “As a poor country, greater energy resources would be helpful for Malawi. But if its good relations with Tanzania were to be destroyed as a result, the costs might well outweigh the benefits”

“The dispute currently appears to be at a standstill, pushed to the bottom of the agenda by a host of other more pressing concerns. As a result, nothing fundamental is likely to change any time soon.”