Section 11(i) of the Public Officers (Declaration of Assets, Liabilities and Business Interests) Act of 2013 requires the director of the Office of the Director of Public Officers’ Declarations (Odpod) to enforce compliance among listed public officers by referring cases of non-compliance to relevant employment authorities with recommendations for sanctions. However, little has been publicly heard about penalties for those who violate the law. Odpod spokesperson TIYAMIKE PHIRI says the office is now seeking amendments to give it prosecutorial powers against public officers who fail to declare assets or under-declare. He spoke to our Mzuzu Bureau Supervisor JOSEPH MWALE. Excerpts:
Generally, what is Odpod doing to ensure that those who fail to declare assets are punished?
Section 18(1) of the Public Officers (Declaration of Assets, Liabilities and Business Interests) Act clearly states that any listed public officer who, without reasonable cause, fails to submit the required declaration within the stipulated time is liable to dismissal from public office, subject to the Constitution and other written laws. Where a listed public officer fails to submit a declaration without a valid excuse, the Director recommends dismissal from the public service. For example, if the officer involved is a cabinet minister, the recommendation is submitted to the appointing authority for possible removal from the Cabinet. If the officer is a Member of Parliament, the recommendation is sent to the Speaker of the National Assembly so that the appropriate parliamentary procedures can be followed and a final determination made.
What have been the consequences for those who failed to declare assets in previous cycles?
As a directorate, we have recommended the dismissal of some public officers who contravened the law. However, our mandate under the current legal framework ends at making recommendations to the relevant authorities. We do not conduct investigations and we do not have prosecutorial powers. Our role is therefore limited to identifying non-compliance and referring such cases to the appropriate authorities for action.
What is Odpod doing to ensure that declared assets match what a public officer actually has?
As part of our programmatic verification process, each year we sample declarations that have been submitted once data compilation and compliance assessment are completed. Using an annual verification programme, selected declarations are scrutinised to determine accuracy and completeness. We also act on whistle-blower information and other suspicious indicators such as over-declaration, anticipatory declarations, or under-declaration where information may have been concealed. It is also important to remind the public, including the media and civil society organisations, that declarations submitted by listed public officers are public documents. Members of the public can access them through a formal application. This public access platform allows citizens to monitor the wealth of public officers, promotes transparency in the public service, and encourages whistle-blowing where irregularities are suspected.
Without lifestyle audit guidelines, how does Odpod ensure public officers are living within their means?
In the absence of formal lifestyle audit guidelines, Odpod relies on indirect and preventive mechanisms to promote accountability. The primary tool remains the asset declaration system. Through verification of declarations over time, we can identify significant changes, inconsistencies, or omissions that may suggest unexplained wealth. Although this process does not constitute a full lifestyle audit, it creates a documented record that can raise red flags and support further inquiry by institutions with investigative mandates.
How is this enforced in practice?
Odpod reinforces this approach through compliance monitoring, verification and inter-agency collaboration. When discrepancies or suspicious patterns emerge from declarations, the office refers such matters to institutions that have investigative or prosecutorial mandates, including the Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB) and the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP). We also conduct sensitisation and advisory activities to remind public officers of their legal obligations and the consequences of submitting false or misleading declarations. Through these measures, even without lifestyle audit guidelines, Odpod contributes to accountability by strengthening transparency, enabling detection of possible illicit enrichment and supporting the broader integrity framework within the public service.
How does the lack of prosecutorial authority affect Odpod’s work, and what is being done about it?
The absence of prosecutorial powers significantly shapes how Odpod operates. Essentially, it functions as an administrative and oversight body whose main objective is to promote public confidence in the public service. Our functions include receiving, maintaining and verifying declarations submitted by public officers. When we detect false declarations, non-compliance or possible illicit enrichment, we refer such matters to relevant law enforcement agencies. However, once a case has been referred, Odpod has no control over investigative timelines, evidentiary requirements or whether the matter eventually leads to prosecution. This can sometimes limit the practical impact of our findings. That is why the Odpod law is currently under review.
With the law under review, what changes are you proposing?
We have previously recommended dismissal of public officers who contravene the law, but our mandate ends there. We neither investigate nor prosecute. In the ongoing review of the law, we have proposed amendments that would expand Odpod’s powers, including granting it investigative and prosecutorial authority. Such reforms would strengthen enforcement and ensure greater accountability in the asset declaration system.
