Malawi is drowning in declarations but starved of explanations. Everyone wants to be heard, yet those in power are reluctant to account for what is happening.
The Speaker wants Parliament to investigate public institutions. The Attorney General wants to take charge of the legal battle surrounding those investigations. The Speaker’s Office says it was not consulted. Meanwhile, First Vice-President Jane Ansah’s office accuses the State broadcaster of sidelining her activities.
As the powerful jostle for control, taxpayers are left wondering who is paying for this institutional spectacle—and who will answer for it.
Consider the 12 joint committees established by Speaker Sameer Suleman to investigate governance concerns in public institutions. Their proposed inquiries cover fuel, electricity, mining, fertiliser, pensions, passports and prison conditions. These are not peripheral matters. They affect essential services, public resources and the daily struggles of ordinary Malawians.
Yet a court injunction has halted the committees’ work, turning accountability into a legal battle over Parliament’s powers. The question is whether the institution mandated to scrutinise public affairs can perform that duty without becoming entangled in a fight over its own authority.
The constitutional dilemma is stark: how can Parliament independently scrutinise the Executive when the Attorney General, its chief legal adviser, seeks to represent it in a case concerning its oversight powers?
Frank Mbeta insists he has the legal authority to represent Parliament. Yet he has already advanced a legal position challenging Suleman’s formation of the committees. How can he credibly defend Parliament’s institutional interests while holding a position that appears to conflict with the Speaker’s decision?
This is no mere dispute over who appears in court. It concerns Parliament’s constitutional independence. Who determines its legal arguments? Whose interests shape its defence? And what safeguards prevent the Executive’s interests from overriding Parliament’s duty to scrutinise it?
Mbeta’s claim to legal authority does not settle these questions. He must explain how his proposed representation would protect Parliament’s independence despite the apparent conflict. Otherwise, the institution charged with holding the Executive accountable risks relying on the Executive’s own legal adviser to defend its oversight powers—which is a far cry from institutional independence.
Perhaps Malawi needs a committee to investigate the committees investigating public institutions—and another to establish who appoints the lawyer, gives instructions and decides what Parliament can argue in defence of its powers. The joke writes itself, but the constitutional questions are no laughing matter.
Parliament must exercise its powers within the Constitution, the Attorney General must act within the law, and the courts must determine the dispute independently. None should exploit legal procedures to evade legitimate scrutiny. Malawians deserve institutions that respect both the law and the separation of powers.
The second production is playing out at the Malawi Broadcasting Corporation (MBC), where Ansah accuses the public broadcaster of ignoring her activities. Her communications director, Richard Mveriwa, alleges that MBC has repeatedly ignored invitations to cover her events.
The uncomfortable truth is that MBC appears to have surrendered much of its public-service mission to politics. Rather than consistently holding power to account, it increasingly appears to serve the Government of the day and the politicians pulling its strings. Taxpayers fund the broadcaster, yet political interests seem to determine whose voices are amplified and whose activities are ignored.
MBC is not the private property of the ruling party or any office-holder. Its duty is to inform the public, scrutinise power and provide fair coverage regardless of who governs.
If Ansah’s events lack news value, MBC should explain its editorial decisions. If newsworthy events are deliberately excluded for political reasons, the broadcaster must answer for that failure. Public-service journalism cannot be reduced to political favouritism.
The complaint comes against the backdrop of Ansah’s earlier allegations that she was excluded from Cabinet meetings and denied access to Cabinet papers. These are serious claims about her participation in government business and require clear answers from the relevant authorities, not silence or speculation.
However, Ansah’s constitutional standing should not be measured by television appearances, just as MBC’s credibility should not depend on pleasing political office-holders.
Meanwhile, ordinary Malawians face more pressing concerns. Why is fuel scarce? Why are essential services unreliable? Where is public money going, and who will account for it?
The country needs journalism that relentlessly pursues these questions, not a public broadcaster preoccupied with political sensitivities.
MBC must recover its public-service soul—which, unfortunately, it lost decades ago. It still belongs to the people, and its duty remains to the people. No government should be allowed to turn it into a political megaphone.
In the battle of big mouths, declarations are plentiful. What remains scarce is accountability.
Tighten the constitutional conflictSharpen the MBC accountability argument
