Members of Parliament (MPs) have come under fire for alleged weak scrutiny in high-profile investigations that allegedly put into question the Legislature’s capacity to deliver credible oversight.
The backlash has resurfaced during the ongoing investigation into the purchase of Amaryllis Hotel in Blantyre by the Public Service Pension Trust Fund where some legislators have been faulted for alleged shallow, repetitive and personalised questioning.
Viewers following Parliament’s livestreamed hearings have expressed frustration, accusing MPs of failing to connect issues or pursue contradictions.
“Same questions, no follow-up. Are they even listening?” reads one comment, while another questions their grasp of complex financial matters.
Concerns over MPs’ effectiveness in committee work are longstanding. Previous probes, including cashgate, maizegate and the butchery fertiliser scandal also exposed governance failures but also drew criticism over the quality of interrogation and limited technical grasp of procurement and public finance systems.
Efforts to obtain comment from Parliament and political parties on committee selection criteria and capacity-building measures were unsuccessful by press time.
But in an interview, former Budget and Finance Committee chairperson Alexander Kusamba Dzonzi observed that superficial questioning often stems from lack of research, political grandstanding, fear of rocking the boat, or personal interests.
“When members are unprepared or co-opted, oversight weakens and accountability suffers. Strengthening technical capacity and committee support is essential for meaningful scrutiny,” he said.
Dzonzi offered practical insight on improving oversight.
“Effective committee oversight requires thorough review of documents, asking specific, probing questions, following up on inconsistencies, engaging experts and making concrete recommendations. It’s about being proactive, not reactive,” he said.
Meanwhile, governance stakeholders have warned that the trend risks undermining current and upcoming investigations, including the expected probe into the June 10 2024 military plane crash that killed former Vice-President Saulos Chilima and eight others.
National Advocacy Platform chairperson Benedicto Kondowe said committee performance remains uneven due to capacity gaps, poor preparation and politicisation.
“Where committees are disciplined and evidence-driven, they deliver. Where these elements are weak, oversight becomes performative,” he said.
On his part, National Anti-Corruption Alliance chairperson Michael Kaiyatsa warned that weak technical capacity allows public officials to evade accountability and risks inconclusive findings.
Centre for Social Accountability and Transparency executive director Willy Kambwandira said inconsistent and superficial questioning is turning oversight into spectacle.
“Critical issues are missed and witnesses are not effectively challenged. There is need for reforms, mandatory training and merit-based committee appointments,” he said.
Nyika Institute executive director Moses Mkandawire described the Amaryllis inquiry as a mix of institutional strength and operational weakness.
“They have asserted their mandate by summoning witnesses and demanding documents, but capacity gaps, partisan influence and inconsistent questioning are evident,” he said.
To restore credibility, analysts are calling for structural reforms, including competency thresholds for committee appointments, expert-led inquiries and mandatory training in finance, law and investigative skills.
Regional models offer lessons. In South Africa, committees are backed by dedicated research units and structured evaluation frameworks that equip MPs to interpret complex evidence.
Kenya and Uganda have leveraged public participation platforms and civil society partnerships to enhance transparency and accountability.
