Govt bills belong to all Malawians - by James Mphande

If government allegations that the opposition in Parliament has connived to reject all government bills is true, then we have good reason to question the reasoning of our parliamentarians.

It does not require the intelligence of a rocket scientist that government business, in this case bills, are for the benefit of all Malawians, irrespective of political affiliations.

This is why we would ordinarily be reluctant to believe the allegations by the government side. And if it were only leader of opposition John Tembo commenting on the allegations, where he denies ever reaching such agreements, we would have dismissed government’s claims for mere political rantings, emanating from frustration.

But hearing leader of UDF in the House George Mtafu, declaring that government will have tough time in pushing its agenda in Parliament because it does not have the numbers, then we have good reason to believe the government claims.

Suffice to say we are not judges to apportion blame to either of the two parties. However, we would like to notify members of the august House that shooting down any government bills without looking at their merits, is as good as committing suicide. Firstly, when such bills are prepared, they do not look at people in terms of their political colours, they are meant for Malawians. It is therefore wrong for parliamentarians to reject them just because they have the numbers to do so. This is what is referred to as abuse of position.

MPs should always remember that they are in Parliament to represent views of the electorate and it is wrong to toe party lines where issues of national interest are concerned. Such kind of behaviour is at best retrogressive and at worst archaic and nauseating.

If the motive is to punish government, for whatever sins on the political front, the MPs will one day wake up to realize that actually they were punishing the people they represent. This is abuse of the trust constituents have in the MPs.

It is our belief that our MPs have grown so big and become so arrogant because they are not answerable to the electorate. This reminds us about the calls for the return of the recall provision, which will empower the electorate to remove an MP who forgets his or her constituents by serving other alien interests.

It is surprising that our divided House demonstrates a rare unity when it comes to dismissing these calls, arguing recall provision could be abused and be used to victimise innocent MPs. And yet the MPs themselves are abusing their roles by engaging in political fights at the expense of issues that are core to the lives of Malawians, presently wallowing in poverty, hunger and disease.

Imagine the child play that characterise our honourable House with unprecedented number of unnecessary adjournments. Does this smack of serious people intent to see their country moving away from the abyss of underdevelopment to the summit of prosperity? We ought to be more serious.

It pains us taxpayers to see MPs getting a full day’s sitting allowance when they only spend minutes in the House, not talking of the trivia that eats much of their time when they choose to be there.

With the tragic incidents of the last sitting of Parliament, we expected sober deliberations this time around but it seems most of our representatives in the House are yet to realise why they are there. The best thing to do now is to have the recall provision, which will check against dead wood.

ACB searches Muluzi’s houses

The Anti Corruption Bureau (ACB), covered by hordes of heavily armed policemen, on Thursday simultaneously raided former head of state Bakili Muluzi’s residences —BCA in Limbe, Area 43 in Lilongwe and Kapoloma in Machinga— and went away with assorted items including computers, bank cheques and bank instructions as part of the information gathering against the former Malawi leader.
ACB director Gustave Kaliwo said in an interview his organisation wanted the information in relation to the K1.4 billion Muluzi is alleged to have received from donor countries, foreign organisations and local private firms, and deposited into a personal account during his ten-year tenure of office.
Kaliwo explained they took the move after Muluzi obtained a court injunction stopping his appearance at the ACB offices on Monday where he was expected to answer questions and produce original documents or certified true copies of documents in his possession or under his control in respect of transactions he had with the Republic of China, Libya, the Kingdom of Morocco and some foreign organisations (name withheld).
“We have got the information we wanted. We wanted to secure it because we were scared it would be hidden or destroyed. We will now analyse it,” boasted Kaliwo. “Give me the next few weeks, and you will see how I will move.”
Muluzi’s lawyer David Kanyenda—who witnessed the full length of the search at BCA— said the exercise started around 9am and ended around 2pm. He said 14 officers — seven each from the ACB and police carried out the search, after showing a search warrant obtained at the Lilongwe Magistrate Court on Wednesday. The warrant, he said, did not specify the kind of information they were looking for.
“But they looked at diaries, letters, computers, bank statements, used cheques, and they have taken a few of them,” he said.
In Lilongwe, Muluzi’s son Atupele said about 16 officers raided the Area 43 residence around 9am and went away with a variety of documents.
Police spokesman Willie Mwaluka said the police officers were only covering the ACB officers but were not involved in the actual search.
Kanyenda lamented that the ACB’s move was reactionary, borne out of desperation and frustration that Muluzi got an injunction not to appear before the bureau, and that he has never provided the information the corruption-busting body has been looking for on other matters.
“The ACB has the mandate to investigate and prosecute, but not to intimidate, harass and embarrass our client. What they have done today is to circumvent the injunction by going to a lower court to get a search warrant, when the court order (injunction) was issued by a higher court,” lamented Kanyenda. “This is interference with the privacy of my client, at best.”
But Kaliwo argued that the ACB went to the lower court because section 15 of the Corrupt Practices Act backs such action. He added that his institution obtained the search warrant in line with Muluzi’s own argument — in the affidavit that led to the injunction — that the Bureau had the state machinery and the law at its disposal to get the information it required, other than by summoning him.
“As regards the other remarks that Mr Kanyenda has made, I am of the view that when my learned friend acquires more experience at the bar, he will appreciate that there are certain courtesies in the legal profession. I think he is a young man to engage him in a discussion on whether or not the ACB was right to do what we have done.”
UDF deputy publicity secretary Mary Kaphwereza Banda accused President Bingu wa Mutharika of using the ACB to harass and embarrass the former head of state.
But Kaliwo hit back: “Those are senseless statements. Searches are routine exercises. Even Muluzi presided over the search of the first head of state late Kamuzu Banda. Was he harassing him then?”

story The Nation

It is absurd that the talk about impeachment comes at a time when the government has managed to restore donor confidence and fiscal discipline-US,UK

Donors have cautioned political parties and Members of Parliament against the impeachment of President Bingu Mutharika, fearing the development may bring disaster for the nation.
The donors also caution against a new government that would not enjoy much international support if the impeachment succeeds.
Government and civil society have hailed the donors’ concern but political parties remain divided over the issue.
In an open letter copied to heads of all political parties in the country, the donors question the speed at which the impeachment motion is being debated —at the expense of more pertinent issues such as the current hunger crisis, poverty and development.
The letter was signed by British High Commissioner David Pearey, Head of Delegation of the European Union Alessandro Mariani, Head of DFID Malawi Roger Wilson, South African High Commissioner Ntshadi Tsheole, ambassadors for the United States of America Alan Eastham, Norway’s Gunnar Foreland, Germany’s Albert Gisy and Charge d’Affaires of the French Embassy Serge Lavroff.
“The government which would be ushered in if the impeachment succeeds would be less likely to enjoy support of the international community and could mar the image of the country abroad because it would have risen to power through hasty and a process that is not transparent or constitutional enough,” reads the letter obtained by The Nation.
The letters further says the donors would not recognise a proposed National Governing Council and might find it difficult to work with such a body.
“The impeachment might place at risk Malawi’s much prized stability and given the uncertain and transitory nature of the proposed National Governing Council, we cannot be certain of being able to have a satisfactory relationship with such a body,” reads the letter.
While avoiding comments on the laid down grounds of impeachment as outlined in the indictment document, the donors say it is absurd that the talk about impeachment comes at a time when the government has managed to restore donor confidence and fiscal discipline, after a long period of a shrunken economy and donor drought.
The donors further say the result of the impeachment would also be to hold an unbudgeted for election in the current financial year which is going to be a very costly exercise for the government.
“This letter should not be read as an uncritical endorsement of all the actions of the current government nor an attempt to silence the legitimate functions of Parliament. It is the job of Parliament to hold the Executive to account.
“We have further urged all those involved to redouble their anti-corruption efforts and ensure they are even-handed. In all cases suspicion of corruption should be thoroughly investigated before reaching judgement,” says the letter.
Information Minister Patricia Kaliati said: “The opposition should be in a better position to comment as they are the ones for the impeachment but we [government] do appreciate the move by the donors because we are the ones to be impeached and it shows they are very much concerned with the national security of this country as well as the economy.”
Institute for Policy Interaction Rafiq Hajat said the concerns raised by the donors are genuine as leaders are busy politicking when millions of people are at the brink of dying from hunger. He further claimed the grounds of the impeachment are not adequate.
Malawi Economic Justice Network Acting Executive Director Mabvuto Bamusi said his organisation is not surprised with the donors’ reaction.
“The donors’ worry should be translated into an economic worry because the Malawi budget is expecting pledges from the same donors and this might adversely affect the pledges as such by the end of the financial year we will have low levels of donor support simply because of political bickering,” said Bamusi.
He added that once donors pull out, government will be forced to borrow domestically to fill the deficit thereby piling up the high domestic debt.
People’s Progressive Movement last week in Lilongwe disassociated itself from the agitators of impeachment, saying the process, if allowed to proceed, would only worsen the country’s fragile economy.
The party’s vice president Mark Katsonga also wrote to Speaker of Parliament telling him that people have not been adequately consulted on the process and called for a constitutional conference to decide on the matter.
But Alliance for Democracy spokesperson Norman Nyirenda yesterday trashed calls to stop the impeachment, saying it is high time the donors learnt to let Malawians decided their own destiny. He said Malawians should not tolerate abuses of office for the sake of donor aid.
But in their letter, the envoys conceded as follows: “Members of the diplomatic community do not in general comment on internal political matters. But in view of the serious nature of the proposals being discussed in the current session of Parliament, their impact on Malawi’s relations with the international community and our own stake in Malawi’s future, we feel compelled to make our views known to those who can influence events.”
But Nyirenda insisted that impeachment of the President would solve the country’s political problems and said the donors should call for a referendum if they have the interest of the country at heart rather than rallying behind a leader who has lost his mandate to rule.
UDF officials—strong advocates of the impeachment process—could not be reached for comment while MCP spokesperson Nicholas Dausi said his boss, John Tembo, would be the proper person to comment on the issue. Tembo’s phone went unanswered.

Take a good look at these faces - John

Petra against impeachment - The Nation

People’s Transformation Party (Petra) President Kamuzu Chibambo has warned against the impeachment of President Bingu wa Mutharika, saying it will not help the people of Malawi as it will be viewed as a man-made disaster by the donor community.
“Any economic woes that inevitably would ensue following Dr. Bingu’s ouster at this point shall not possibly qualify Malawi as a priority area for donor aid by reason of the fact that such woes would be self imposed unlike natural disaster,” Chibambo said in Blantyre Tuesday.
He said the impeachment was being pursued for personal interests which would not help the people of Malawi, adding the main problem now is the current hunger situation.
Chibambo warned Malawians to look seriously at the players behind the impeachment, saying there were three categories of people in the matter.
“Those who know they are being chased by the law. The skeletons in their closets are giving them sleepless nights, ” Chibambo said.
Chibambo noted that “they that rightly deserved impeachment many times during their time are shouting the loudest. ”
Chibambo said the second category are those who itch to taste power again with their appetite making them fail to discern what is really at the heart of the impeachment.
The third category, he said, are those who cannot survive on their own but have to be “passengers of other people’s boats.”
Chibambo said “this is not the first time for the current leaders of UDF, MCP and Aford to team up. It happened in 2002 during the infamous Open Term Bill.”
Chibambo said Petra “vehemently opposes the impeachment motion.”
He recommended finding another way of addressing the concerns raised in the impeachment grounds as some were valid.

We are tired with unGodly behaviour! - Austin

We are totally tired with unGodly behaviour.

Take it or leave it Mr Muluzi your plans will never succeed.

Your days as a free individual are numbered.

Impeachment no solution by Bright MacEverson Malopa, 26 October 2005 - 07:27:22

The impeachment of President Bingu wa Mutharika is again gathering pace through manipulation of parliamentary numbers to make a legislative coup plotted by corrupt and discredited politicians in the face of a public judgment. This is a challenge for democracy and the rule of the people to which all those with the slightest form of political decency should join hands to warn the opposition impeachniks about the dangers of this misleading political time bomb.
One word of strategic advice to the impeachniks is: Stop! The situation at hand is too serious for impeachment. “Looming hunger,and poverty levels” are at best incidental to the major case against Mutharika, and “impeachment” talk drives us further from every plausible goal, in almost every plausible set of circumstances. It is almost comprehensively anti-strategic.
Let’s agree that Mutharika is bad, but how bad is bad enough? It’s an important question. Somebody has to be worst, and worst isn’t necessarily bad enough to justify jumping democracy’s routine feedback cycle.
One of the respected analyst of Malawian politics Dr. John Lwanda, once said: “Hate him or love him, Dr. Mutharika will go down in Malawian history as the most transparent and tolerant President.” He was right indeed because in 1965 Dr Hastings Kamuzu Banda had this to say while trying to warn those who were plotting to unseat him: “If a person even just thinks about it, the forcible overthrow of the government and speaks aloud and somebody hears about it, that is treason.”
Testament to this was events that followed suit which resulted into considerable number of people who were exiled as well as killed for simply expressing themselves. In the post single-party era, we had Bakili Muluzi who took the third term loss as a personal blow to the extent that he denounced and ridiculed whoever showed signs of not buying into his agenda.
Some judges nearly got impeached, opponents were boxed right within Parliament compounds with some being imprisoned. Journalists were severely beaten for asking the right questions while other supporters had their business contracts cancelled. Hon. Justin Malewezi risked his life after government decided to remove his medical benefits all because he expressed his opinion. To date none of the above is happening.
When discussing impeachment it is important to ask ourselves pertinent questions starting with our past and provide objective answers to the following questions: “How bad is Bingu?” “How bad is bad enough?” “And what do we do if Bingu is bad enough?” Make these questions — and not your immediate answers — the core topic of our national conversation, and we may get somewhere.
In political civility, difference and diversity are acknowledged, but they do not prevent the hegemony of the common interest as the ultimate goal of all party politics. Political civility means more than just a style of government or an altruistic way of life: ‘It assumes a relationship of obligation and recognition which governs the contest between the interests and parties in a political association.’
Such positive pluralism has yet to be introduced to the political ideology of both MCP and UDF. Their defining character has often been the politics of threat — with, in many cases, the threat of political violence used to gain political ground. The MCP used MYP, the youth League and the Special Branch while the UDF used the Young Democrats and NIB to advance and consolidate their power.
The politics of threat efficiently prevents the birth of political civility — indeed; creating its opposite, incivility, destroying the unity of the political entity. The current political trend as is being championed by Mutharika has rendered obsolete these devilish means of power consolidation.
“Friend” and “enemy” are quite strong words to people accustomed to a consensus-based ideal of politics. But the distinction is particularly useful in analysing politics in Malawi, especially between UDF and MCP, where these divisions are more visible and perhaps more important than in many other political parties.
It is quite surprising to note that John Tembo whom many were regarding in high esteem can be seduced by the UDF and demean himself by hatching a plot to unseat the President through their impeachment plans without a valid case being made. MCP was the most victimised party during Muluzi’s reign.
In fact, Muluzi vowed never ever to work with MCP dubbing them as a party of death and darkness. Their meetings were constantly disturbed, property torched and bundled, vehicles set ablaze in broad daylight by UDF operatives.
He further tore MCP apart by tapping into many of their otherwise loyal MPs not least imprisoned Tembo for flimsy and cooked up charges and at worse spent almost a year in jail simply because the UDF didn’t even want him to be an MP.
Today, the UDF wants to work with MCP not because they have changed their policy over MCP but because they are the only ones foolish enough to help them stop Mutharika from transforming the country through his war on graft and corruption and Tembo wants to be used as a pawn in the battle against corruption.
For the first time in our country’s history, we are now experiencing a dramatic shift in our political field. Bodies which are often associated with anti-government sentiments are now forming the first line of defence defending the government. The Malawi Law Society along with the Law Commission have all voiced their dismay on the current impeachment talk.

Malawians its time to act. These are the times to wake up from sleep and work for our country - Mr S Kamwendo

Malawians need to understand that the future of this
country remain in the hands of the people who have the
need of the poor at heart. The current spirit that has
been planted in the hearts of our political leaders
will ruin the already ravaged country. Our kids will
have no future, let alone our lives are in danger.

Am appealing to all Malawians in this country and
abroad to work together to frustrate the efforts of
political leaders as Bakili Muluzi, John Tembo,
Kamlepo, Kaluwa and Chakufwa Chihana at whatever cost
for the sake of the mother Malawi. If it calls for
mass action lets do it without fear. No body will do
it for us. If we keep quite we are going to suffer
just like our friends across the boaders. We are smart
enough to see this aren't we?

Pretending that things are ok will not help, lets work
together to block these evil forces from selfish
leaders who have no conern for the poor, the sick and
the hungry. These people are just as good as beasts
who have no mercy or compassion for their own country
and let alone their own kinsmen. They are like
terrorist who have the excitment to kill others at the
epence of their own lives. They are just as germs that
cause deadly diseases while they reside in the same
bodies they destroy and end up destroying themselves.

These are killers of peace, killers of development,
killers of prosperity. Lets fight and give them no
chance but misery. They do not deserve to live, Oh!who
would care if they go.

Malawians its time to act. These are the times to wake
up from sleep and work for our country. This is the
beginning of my daily pleas to the inhabitants of
Malawi and those living abroad.

High Court Judge Joseph Manyungwa stops ACB from questioning Muluzi

The High Court in Blantyre on Monday granted UDF National Chairman Bakili Muluzi an injunction stopping the Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB) from questioning him over how the K1.4 billion from local and international donors found itself in his private account
The injunction, granted by High Court Judge Joseph Manyungwa, restrains the ACB or its agents from enforcing its notice that Muluzi should appear before the bureau.
The order also stops the ACB from prosecuting Muluzi under the Corrupt Practices Act for failing to comply with the notice.
The ACB had summoned Muluzi to appear at its Blantyre offices Monday afternoon in compliance with the notice it served him last week to explain the money transfers into his personal account that took place between April, 1999 and November, 2004.
“Muluzi’s lawyers decided to give us the injunction two hours before he was due to appear. Although he was given seven days, it is regrettable that he and his advisors chose to proceed ex parte, thus denying me the opportunity to explain my position to the court,” ACB director Gustave Kaliwo told a news conference in Blantyre.
“Be that as it may, The ACB will continue with its investigations into the matter and the bureau’s investigations will not be held up by time wasting tactics,” he said.
According to affidavits filed by Muluzi’s lawyer, David Kanyenda, the former President has applied for the injunction because he believes he is being persecuted by the current government.
The affidavits cited the recent case where his security detail was removed without his permission and the issue where the ACB is probing his Keza office complex as incidents of political persecution.
“It is ordered that an injunction be and is hereby issued restraining the respondent or his agents or servants or through whosoever from enforcing his notice to answer questions, provide information and furnish documents issued under section 11 of the Corrupt Practices Act.
“It also restrains the respondent from requiring the applicant to appear at the ACB offices to answer questions and produce all original documents in his possession or certified true copies of documents in his possession or under his control,” reads a copy of the injunction.
But the ACB has complained of underhand tactics by Muluzi and his legal advisors for saying he is being persecuted.
“They are trying to involve other cases when this is a different case altogether. By summoning the former head of state, we wanted to save time and money and prove whether there is a case or not for him to answer,” Kaliwo said at the impromptu press briefing.
Kaliwo said the questioning was meant to expedite the matter and help the bureau in understanding the workings of government in respect to the certain types of transactions from Muluzi’s point of view.
He hinted that he might challenge the injunction.
The court has since ruled that the injunction remains valid until the main issues raised in the affidavits are determined.
This is the second time in three months that Muluzi has got an injunction against the ACB. He got the first injunction when he was leaving for a three-week holiday in the United Kingdom when the bureau wanted him to furnish it with a sworn statement on how he amassed his wealth and managed to build the multi-million Kwacha Keza Office complex.
Meanwhile, the ACB has cleared Attorney General Ralph Kasambara of any corrupt practices. The AG was being probed for alleged influence in a pre-shipment contract. He was also accused of meddling in the affairs of widowed Hellen Singh and her son—involving inheritance of property left by her husband.
Kaliwo said in both cases Kasambara does not have anything to answer.
The ACB also put to rest claims by Justice Minister Henry Phoya that there was a trio in government that was milking Indians. Kaliwo said officials from the bureau interviewed 28 Asians from all the regions who denied the existence of such a trio.
“Even the honourable Phoya himself said he did not have evidence and said he was only acting on hearsay,” said Kaliwo.

Story by The Nation

Marchers besiege Parliament in Malawi

Thousands of government sympathisers on Monday besieged the New State House in the capital Lilongwe and held Parliament hostage in protest against the indictment motion which was introduced in the House last week against President Bingu wa Mutharika.
The sympathisers, who had petitioned Speaker of the National Assembly Louis Chimango, called for his immediate resignation and labelled the impeachment process “a coup d’etat”.
The marchers carried placards, some of which read: “Malawians ready to die for Bingu wa Mutharika’s leadership”, “Atcheya tavuka na vitusi” and “Call referendum or Bingu is our leader at heart.”
The demonstrators invaded the Presidential Drive as early as 12 noon and marched to the gates of the New State House while chanting songs in praise of Mutharika and against the impeachment.
Led by Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) regional governor for the North Harry Mkandawire, the marchers searched all vehicles going towards the State House while shouting: “We want Lucius Banda, we want Atupele!”
But things got nasty when the marchers reached State House gates and started smashing vehicles and throwing missiles at police who were trying to control the situation.
Some police officers were seen scampering for their lives as several vehicles, including a government one registration MG 857V, were smashed, while MP for Mangochi Monkey Bay Alinane Chipwete also had windows of his Mazda Drifter BK 5690 smashed.
Four other vehicles were smashed by the angry marchers who insisted that anyone stopped at the New State House gates should first state their name and political party.
Police spokesperson Willie Mwaluka confirmed the incident and said two men, Clifford Ganiza from Mitundu area, TA Chadza in Lilongwe and John Jere of TA Kasakula, Ntchisi, were arrested as suspects on the malicious damage of the vehicles.
The House, which sat at 1230GMT instead of 1200GMT as scheduled, failed to start deliberations after a resolution was made that government should act on the demonstrators, who were said to be threatening the MPs.
Chimango made announcements on the two injunctions against the House’s indictment process obtained by Richard Msowoya and Silvester Kasambara.
He said the Business Committee had resolved that the House should find a private law firm to represent them in the cases instead of the Attorney General Ralph Kasambara.
But the House could no longer conduct further business after it unanimously agreed to adjourn until the situation outside was normal.
After the House resumed sitting later at 1500GMT, the Speaker announced that it would adjourn to 1200GMT Tuesday but said if the marchers were not moved he would make another announcement.
Chimango expressed concern that leader of the government side seemed not to have control over the situation and said nowhere in the world “are MPs held hostage in their own building of National Assembly.”
“This issue will not bring honour to the Malawi nation,” he said.
Concerned with their security and when it was apparent that the marchers would not leave the gates before the House adjourned, the MPs asked to have police escort while leader of the UDF in the House George Mtafu suggested that the Army should be called to escort the MPs out of the premises.
But the Speaker could not comment on the petition that was presented to Deputy Clerk of Parliament Stanislaus Chisanu.
Mkandawire, when presenting the petition, said the demonstrators want it to be read in the House or they would not leave the premises.
He also accused Chimango of being biased towards the opposition.
“Honourable Chimango, you don’t fit in democracy now. We want to say in no uncertain terms that we are calling for your immediate resignation and a trial of treason for you and others who are drifting the country into a war situation,” said Mkandawire.
Mkandawire said because of the trust that people have lost on the MPs, they would no longer let them operate in the premises which also houses the head of state, adding that they should therefore move out and look for alternative premises.
When the House finally adjourned, there was more drama as all the ministers, MPs and all those attending the deliberations were forced to use a dusty road from the State House which took the journey over 10 kilometres off the normal route.
Meanwhile, some Chancellor College students have also threatened to march to Parliament on Thursday if the House will go ahead with the indictment and impeachment motion.
But Students Union of Chancellor College (Succ) chairman Steven Masiyano could not confirm the march Monday, saying he was waiting for a general assembly meeting which is yet to decide on what action the college should take on the issue. The general assembly was meeting Monday evening.

A Nation of Tailors - by Zumani Kondowe, 21 October 2005 - 07:40:08

Back in 1992 or was it 1993 when Malawi’s current Constitution was being resisted there was debate on a number of issues. One hot issue was about whether or not a person with a criminal record could stand as a Presidential candidate.
Because one of the potential candidates was a former convict, the final phrasing was such that it both barred and allowed former convicts to stand as presidential candidates. It was tailored to accommodated a particular individual. What is a criminal record after all, people do get reformed. The rest is history, 10 years of plunder.
Another incidence of tailoring took place when the UDF discovered that it was having problems in passing legislation in Parliament. The party explored ways of removing the deficit and decided that the best way was to bring Aford into government.
But this had to be attractive to Aford. Bakili Muluzi appointed Chakufwa Chihana Second Vice President. A bill was introduced to amend the Constitution to create the office of the Second Vice President so as to regularise a hitherto unconstitutional appointment. The combined votes of UDF and Aford ensured that the amendment went through. Politics, yes. Tailoring, yes.
The framers of the Constitution foresaw the possibility that in a multiparty arrangement, MPs elected on the ticket of one party might, for one reason or another, want to shift allegiances. So, they put in place a provision on crossing the floor. Any MP elected on the ticket of a party represented in Parliament who decides to join another party also represented in Parliament, would automatically lose his or her seat.
You will recall ladies and gentlemen, that when the Aford President, Chakufwa Chihana, decided to end his alliance with the UDF, suddenly there emerged on the political scene, independent parliamentarians. The late Mapopa Chipeta and the late Matembo Mzunda, among others, declared themselves independent and thus defeated the provision of crossing the floor. The MCP also lost MPs who became independents.
At that time this suited the UDF perfectly. Ladies and gentlemen these are historical facts, not abstract constructions. During the second term of the UDF the provision suddenly became inadequate when Brown Mpinganjira and others declared themselves independent and went on to establish the National Democratic Alliance (NDA) pressure group. This is when the UDF decided time for more tailoring was ripe. They proposed an amendment. Crossing the flow should include those joining any group that is political in nature they said.
The 1999-2004 Parliament also tried to tailor the Constitution to then incumbent President to allow him to stand for another term of office. The idea was that a President could stand for as long as he or she wished. Limiting the Presidential term, it was argued, was tantamount to interfering with the right of people to choose a person of their choice. The tailoring failed. It was refined to become a third term of office, now even more tailored to the incumbent, the tailor had not stitched the garment properly and the proposed amendment fell through.
Now the current move is to tailor the Constitution to the liking of the opposition. The reasons are as tragic as they immature and immoral. The Malawi political scene has never been so tragically dramatic. Most people who have followed Malawian politics during the second term of the self-acclaimed political engineer, particularly during the open term and third debates, should be conversant with what the real issues are. In case you are in doubt, it is about controlling Malawi’s meagre donor-supported purse. Motivations for controlling the purse differ.
As one commentator put it recently in one of the papers, for 10 years, Malawi’s Parliament never thought of putting in place procedures for impeaching a President but suddenly this has become the most important issue. The reasons are well documented. For those who might not be aware, they revolve around the desire to remove an “ungrateful” President.
A President who has not rewarded those who sang songs of praise. A President who thought time for ministerial Christmas was over. For some, a President that robbed their party of victory even after practically bagging all seats in the Central Region. Imagine the frustration!
Opposition MPs are debating procedures for impeaching a President. As many people have observed, nothing wrong with that. Parliament has the mandate to do that and there is need to do so. There are some theories being floated around on the impeachment.
One I find particularly interesting is that which looks at the relationship between the UDF and the MCP as some Tom and Jerry arrangement. Who will be the ultimate loser. There has to be one. Both cannot win. One will be used as a stepping stone in the whole impeachment process. The impeachment itself also being a means to an end.
The UDF have made the impeachment attractive for the MCP. John Tembo will be President for six months. For someone who has nursed a lifelong ambition to be President that sounds like peanuts. For the UDF, still nursing a hung-over of plunder, that appears overly generous.
What will prevent the UDF, observers say, from sponsoring a concerned citizen who will challenge the amendment in court as having been unnecessary. The Constitution, after all, already provides that in the event of the President leaving office, the Vice President would take over. If such an action succeeded in court, UDF’s Cassim Chilumpha becomes President. The UDF is back in power. Fasten your seat belts, we are flying straight into a tornado.
What happens when JZU assumes the six months Presidency. Well, while the “concerned” citizen’s case is being battled out in court, you know how long these cases take, JZU will be marshalling the forces that have served him so well for over 30 years and the UDF might find itself out of power forever.
There is a circus unfolding in Malawi and this circus is revolving around the very important issue of removing a head of state through impeachment. It is a circus because it is difficult to find convincing answers to questions surrounding the impeachment. Should our impoverished country really be subjected to two elections in 22 months when there are so many other pressing issues which need Parliament’s attention?
Should we again be thinking of lining up to vote one year and four months after we faithfully voted just because Gwanda Chakuamba needs a BMW and to be Number 3? Should we be kicked around like footballs because the President broke his promise to make a certain Malawian a government minister or because the MCP wants universal fertiliser subsidy which will ultimately benefit large estate owners?
Let us stop this tailoring. Tailor-made garments are expensive!

MCP MPs caution Tembo on impeachment - The Nation

Malawi Congress Party (MCP) MPs have warned their president John Tembo against throwing his weight behind the indictment of President Bingu wa Mutharika because he may not get the presidency or head the proposed National Governing Council (NGC). The MPs also fear that the United Democratic Front (UDF), which is baying for Mutharika’s blood, only wants to use Tembo and his numbers in Parliament and later leave him in the cold after the President’s impeachment. The MPs sounded the warning during their caucus held on Wednesday night at Tembo’s Area 10 residence in the capital Lilongwe. Three MCP MPs who attended the caucus said on Sunday the popular view at the meeting was that “the proposal to have Tembo to lead the NGC was just a mere carrot dangled in front of Tembo’s nose but he risks not getting it as the Constitution is clear that the Vice President takes over when there is a vacancy in the office of the president.” “Most of the MPs felt that the idea of an NGC might not work as it can be challenged in court. And on top of that the members felt that there was no commitment on the part of the UDF to ensure that JZU heads the council,” said one of the sources who asked for anonymity. Section 83 (4) of the Constitution reads: “whenever there is a vacancy in the office of the President, the Vice President shall assume that office for the remainder of the term and shall appoint another person to serve as first Vice President for the remainder of the term.” But the sources said Tembo remained adamant and told them that he would meet the UDF national chairman Bakili Muluzi and the Vice President Cassim Chilumpha where the three would sign a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) guaranteeing that Tembo should take over and that Chilumpha should not “make noise” should Mutharika’s indictment succeed. Meanwhile, the sources said, a number of MCP MPs have agreed not to support the UDF-led motion for fear of being used. The party is yet to hold another secret meeting Monday to persuade Tembo to withdraw his support from the impeachment motion. MCP spokesperson Bintony Kutsaila and Tembo could not be reached for comment Sunday but vice president Nicholas Dausi said he did not know the party held such a meeting. Chief whip Betson Majoni could not comment as he said he was in church when contacted. In a related development, the High Court last Friday granted Karonga Nyungwe MP Richard Msowoya an injunction restraining Parliament from indicting President Mutharika on Thursday.

Impeachment worries donors

The donor community in the country on Wednesday met in Lilongwe to discuss the current political tensions in the country, a week after Britain said that this could hinder food aid to over 4 million people facing hunger in the country.
British deputy high commissioner Chris Wraight confirmed the meeting on Wednesday but declined to disclose the details of the agreements.
“We met it’s true and discussed the current political situation but I can’t comment because we would be releasing a statement in due course,” he said.
Donors’ concerns come fast on the heels of a complaint by the British government two weeks ago that the current political landscape could hinder food aid to millions of Malawians facing a food shortage.
The Malawi Council of Churches also has condemned moves to impeach Mutharika while the Malawi Law Society has called for a referendum on constitutional amendment, especially on the National Governing Council bill which seeks to stop the Vice President from taking over the Presidency should a vacancy arise in the office of the President.

Story by the Nation

This is our country, and we will not allow a few greedy and unfeeling individuals to create anarchy - Public Affairs Committee

The Public Affairs Committee (Pac) has instructed its lawyers to challenge the constitutionality of impeachment procedures the National Assembly approved on Thursday.
But UDF says Pac has overstepped its limits.
Soon after the procedures went through in the House, a Pac official said he was writing instructions to the organisation’s lawyer to obtain a court injunction stopping the implementation of the procedures until a judicial review was held.
“Now that the procedures have been confirmed by the National Assembly, we are going to court. It is our strong belief that the procedures have not captured exhaustively the principles of natural justice as enshrined in the Constitution.
“Because proponents of these procedures were working against an obvious set deadline, they bulldozed the process and left out very key and critical constitutional tenets,” said the official. “If all goes well we will be in court this afternoon.”
Pac publicity secretary Maurice Munthali confirmed the development yesterday, saying apart from obtaining the injunction, Pac will challenge the whole impeachment process.
“Yes, the instructions have been given to lawyers that an injunction should be obtained to stop this nonsense. My chairman told me that he has consulted board members, and a considerable number of us agreed a court order be obtained. These selfish MPs must not be allowed to get away with this rubbish,” said Munthali.
“And, as Pac, we are ready to take them head on throughout the impeachment process. This is our country, and we will not allow a few greedy and unfeeling individuals to create anarchy,” he added.
Two days ago, Pac chair Boniface Tamani said his organisation will also challenge the National Governing Council in court.
“This National Assembly is sick and on a life support machine,” said Tamani. “But we will show them the futility of pursuing personal agendas in the House instead of representing the people.”
Reacting to Pac’s move, UDF spokesman Sam Mpasu Thursday afternoon said Pac had overstepped its limits.
“Pac should know what its powers are and what those of the National Assembly are. Pac is a private organisation while the National Assembly is a public institution.
“A private organisation cannot stop Parliament from doing its work, just as it can not stop the Judiciary or the Executive from doing its work.
“In this case, I do not see any sane judge stopping Parliament from doing its work because legislative supremacy is vested in the Legislature,” said Mpasu. “I am saying not even the Judiciary can stop Parliament from doing its work.”

UDF confession shows the tragedy of our time

There is something wrong with the UDF and with it as a party that is passionately seeking to rule at the earliest opportunity, the nation has every reason to get worried. The party’s obsession to get at President Bingu wa Mutharika is turning rabid and irrational.
The other day there was the confession that the party won the presidency through stolen votes and only yesterday we heard the startling confession that government donations were going into the private accounts of former president Bakili Muluzi to help finance the campaign.
Both revelations, if they were meant to throw mud at Mutharika, are blatant miscalculations with the potential to boomerang on the UDF. Of course, the UDF itself ought to get worried that they have Likoma MP George Mtafu as their leader in the House.
No sensitive leader could have made that confession without fully considering the ramifications. But if his thinking represents that of the whole party we have a tragedy on our hands. Throughout Muluzi’s tenure, curious Malawians raised eyebrows at his affluence as he played Father Christmas splurging money.
Now the answers on the source of that largesse are coming out and it is depressing. The whole civilised world knows that governments deal with governments, not individuals. Where individuals receive personal donations from governments, be it in the name of a party or another government, moralists go to work.
The scenario which Mtafu remorselessly confessed to yesterday is an indictment of the current state of declaration of assets by public servants. It shows that our leaders can still enrich themselves in our name and at our expense.
Now that Mtafu has made the ACB’s job simpler by confessing to this embarrassing irregularity, the nation will wait to see the matter taken to its logical conclusion. Government’s zero-tolerance for corruption has the potential to show its real worth.

Editorial from The Nation

The money used to purchase US$300,000 cars and mansions while millions of Malawians went further into poverty

The United Democratic Front (UDF) has admitted that the K1.4 billion from various donors that was deposited into party chairman Bakili Muluzi’s personal account was used for UDF’s electoral campaign last year, and that one of the beneficiaries was President Bingu wa Mutharika.
Leader of UDF in Parliament George Mtafu made the admission Tuesday in the House when he raised a point of concern over the summoning of Muluzi by the Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB) to explain why and how the money ended in his account.
“These are the donations which were partly used in elections last year. It means that he who stood as a presidential candidate last year used part of this money. My worry is that there is an intentional sniffing into private accounts which has started,” said Mtafu.
He said under the laws of the country it is not an offence to receive donations and that under the Constitution everybody is entitled to a private life.
“It is only when public money has been stolen when it is an offence,” added Mtafu.
The ACB disclosed on Monday that it has summoned Muluzi to explain the money he deposited in his personal account during his 10-year tenure of office.
The former head of state is expected to answer questions and produce all original documents or certified true copies of documents in his possession or under his control in respect of transactions he had with the Republic of China (Taiwan), Libya, the Kingdom of Morocco, Rwanda and some foreign and local organisations.
But Chinese Embassy Counsellor Jimmy Wu said on Monday he was not aware of the money Taiwan is alleged to have given Muluzi as an individual, saying since there was a government to government cooperation, the money that came was for development programmes.
Mtafu, who also raised a concern over the arrest of Secretary to the Treasury Milton Kutengule and the impending arrest of former Education Minister Yusuf Mwawa, described the move on Muluzi as a “resurrection of harassment on the former head of state.”
Government did not comment on Mtafu’s concern in the House, but in an interview outside, Deputy Information Minister John Bande said government was happy that Mtafu made such a revelation because it shows that the ACB was not just witch-hunting.
“It shows that indeed some money meant for public use was put into personal use. This would make the job of the ACB easy because Mtafu has disclosed where the said money went,” he said.
Bande said it would be wrong to connect the money to Mutharika and other individuals who stood on a UDF ticket because during the campaign everybody, including the President, did not know where Muluzi was getting the funds for the campaign.
“The way I know the President, he is a man of principles and if he knew that the money was from donors he could not have accepted. Nobody knew where the money came from, it was personalised and went straight into his personal account and probably this time he has confided in Mtafu,” he said.
UDF spokesperson Sam Mpasu in a separate interview concurred with Mtafu that the money in Muluzi’s account was for the party’s campaign.
“There is no law which stops a party leader from seeking financial assistance for campaign. The money was for the party and Mutharika also benefited,” said Mpasu

The man who should be charged for Treason for putting a political party before the Republic

Vice President Cassim Chilumpha has said “only the insane and mad politicians” can abandon a political party that sponsored them into positions, arguing that in civilised politics the only reasonable thing for such people is to resign.
But government has described the VP’s remarks as unfortunate, saying President Bingu wa Mutharika has never forced Chilumpha to join the DPP.
Chilumpha made the remarks during a rally he addressed in Namwera, Mangochi, on Sunday soon after he graced a Paper Sunday offertory at Namwera CCAP Church.
“It is like when you have appointed someone a chief in a village and after sometime you tell those people who appointed you that you are moving out of that village and establish another village somewhere. What would you say about that man? You would say he is mad, he is insane,” he said, amid ululation from supporters.
“When you leave the party that ushered you into a position you are supposed to resign. In civilised politics that is what is supposed to happen, you resign from your position.
“In Parliament there are rules as well, that when you leave a party that sponsored you it means you have crossed the floor. I am challenging whoever can dispute this fact to come forward,” said Chilumpha, whose remarks apply to those who left their original parties, including the President, who resigned from the United Democratic Front (UDF) that sponsored his 2004 successful presidential bid.
The Vice President reiterated his position that he was not ready to leave the UDF even if it means being fired from government.
He said there was no way anyone could take him to task on that position since it was his freedom and he would “stubbornly” not let go what he is believing in.
“You mandated me to be your Vice President and voted for a clasped hands symbol. Check on that ballot paper, there was the presidential candidate on top and below it there was my name. It is not possible for me to leave the party. Where should I go? Whether someone has left, that’s not my business,” said Chilumpha.
He also called upon UDF leaders not to be swayed by the current political climate in the country by moving out of the party but to remain loyal to it and its national chairman Bakili Muluzi.
On the food situation in the country, Chilumpha said government in collaboration with donor countries was doing everything possible to make sure that maize is available in Admarc markets as well as for free distribution to the needy.
He, however, called on those who have little food to assist those who have nothing, instead of waiting for government’s assistance.
Chilumpha also asked religious leaders to organise countrywide prayers to have God’s indulgence in the crisis.
Commenting on Chilumpha’s statement, government spokesperson Patricia Kaliati said it was unfortunate that the Vice President was speaking as if President Bingu wa Mutharika has ever forced him to join the DPP.
“President Mutharika has never forced anyone to join the DPP. As the second citizen of this country we have a lot of respect for him, we also expect him to respect the President and those who have left the UDF. We have never embarrassed anyone including the VP. As our number two man and a lawyer, he is aware that those people he is calling mad have their rights too,” she said.
Chilumpha has remained in the UDF after Mutharika abandoned it, but his relationship with his boss has never been clear with speculation that the two do not see eye to eye.
Since the fallout, the Vice President’s position has never been clear. Recently, during a function in the same district, Chilumpha said he would not abandon those who voted for him even if it meant him being fired from government.

Story by The Nation

The Last Sane Politicians - PPM says no to impeachment

The People’s Progressive Movement (PPM) has disassociated itself from politicians who are agitating for the impeachment of President Bingu wa Mutharika.
PPM president Aleke Banda said Monday at a press conference the impeachment process, if allowed to proceed, would only worsen the already fragile Malawi economy and render the country poorer.
The United Democratic Front (UDF) is pushing for procedures in Parliament’s standing orders so that the President, who became Malawi’s leader on its ticket and resigned to form his Democratic Progressive party (DPP), gets impeached as soon as possible.
“It might be easy to find two-thirds majority in Parliament, but the person who has been impeached by Parliament would not accept that position lying down. Most probably he will challenge it in court,” Banda said, adding that as the two sides will be fighting in court, development programmes in the country are likely to halt and donors and foreign investors are also going to back away.
“PPM strongly believes that Mutharika’s impeachment is not necessary because it is not in the interest of poor Malawians, who would like the people they elected into Parliament to address issues of HIV and Aids, tuberculosis (TB), poverty and food security,” said Banda, who was flanked by his vice Mark Katsonga Phiri and director of legal affairs James Makoza Chirwa.
“It is our considered view that there will be no winner. The opposition will not win. The President will not win. All of us will be losers,” he emphasised, adding that Parliament should avoid playing complainant, prosecutor, jury and judge at the same time, as some MPs have shown in the House.
Banda said PPM is not against the proponents of the impeachment, but feels that there are other ways of solving problems that led to Mutharika falling out with UDF.
Katsonga Phiri said PPM is concerned that some MPs are preoccupied with Mutharika’s impeachment when there are many more important things for them to fight for, for their constituents.
“[Impeachment] is really occupying a lot of our time. We are ignoring the important issues of our nation. This is worrying us. [It] is disturbing the rapport we were creating with our donors and friendly governments,” he said, adding that “after all this government has only three years to go and to some of us who have struggled in life, three years is nothing.”
If Mutharika is not the right material for the presidency, reasoned Katsonga Phiri, let the electorate say so at the polls in 2009.
But Banda said PPM feels that Mutharika should initiate contact and dialogue with the opposition to avert the looming political crisis.
He said although the President has said at political rallies that he is ready to discuss his differences with UDF and other opposition parties, he has fallen short of taking a lead in ensuring the round-table discussions take place.
“We have always advocated for contact and dialogue but it seems it is falling on deaf ears,” Banda lamented, adding that Mutharika has nothing to lose by letting the opposition leaders “bare their chests”.

ACB wants Muluzi to explain deposits - The Nation 18 October 2005 - 06:47:38

The ACB has summoned former president Bakili Muluzi to explain why he received K1.4 billion from donor countries, foreign organisations and local private firms, which he deposited into a personal account during his 10-year tenure of office.
According to a letter of notice from ACB director Gustave Kaliwo to Muluzi dated 17th October 2005, Muluzi is requested go to ACB offices in Blantyre on October 24, 2005 at 1200GMT to shed light on the issue.
Muluzi is expected to answer questions and produce all original documents or certified true copies of documents in his possession or under his control in respect of transactions he had with the Republic of China (Taiwan), Libya, the Kingdom of Morocco, Rwanda and some foreign organisations (names withheld).
The letter, which indicates Muluzi pocketed a total of K1,399,191,218.64 between April 1999 and November 2004, says the UDF national chair’s explanations would help the bureau in its investigations into his affairs.
Lawyer David Kanyenda from Sacranie and Gow, Muluzi’s lawyers, confirmed receipt of the notice and said they had forwarded it to their client.
“I can confirm that at around 4.30 pm today we were served with the notice. In the meantime we are getting instructions from our client regarding the conduct of the matter,” Kanyenda said when contacted Monday afternoon.
Muluzi’s spokesperson Sam Mpasu said he was not aware of the development, describing it as government’s ploy to embarrass the former head of state.
Jimmy Wu, a counsellor at the Chinese Embassy in Lilongwe, said he was not aware of money Taiwan is alleged to have given Muluzi as an individual.
“All I know is that there is a government-to-government cooperation and the money that comes from the Republic of China is for development programmes in Malawi,” he said, adding that constitutionally people in Taiwan have the right to know how their tax is used.
According to ACB documents, Muluzi is alleged to have banked K46 million and K252 million donated by local firms and unknown sources respectively, while Taiwan and its embassy in Malawi provided close to K700 million. The rest is from other sources.
If Muluzi does not comply with the notice to appear before the bureau, he can be guilty of an offence with a fine of K50,000 and imprisonment for two years, under Section 11 (c) and (d) of the Corrupt Practices Act.

Patriotism- by concerned

I think the truth of the
matter isthat we are too
 poor and should be
busy thinking about other
things likegetting ourselves
out of poverty. My question
 to the opposition is for who
and what are they wasting their energy on fighting and
impeaching the president. For the first time in years
investors, donors and Malawians abroad have
already gone back and some are considering
to go back to Malawi to help
rebuild our country but then we
have people who do not share that
vision and goal of making our country a success
story.

Again my question is who are they
fighting for and for what.

I think unless we can stand up against that
generation of politicians that has almost
covered their life span and are bent to
destroy our future the situation will remain
hopeless. So yes let there be demonstrtions all
over the country if they decide to remove the
last hope Malawi has.

Our future is at stake and the opposition
is not doing anything helpful,they have become
a liability controlled by a hand full of selfish
leaders.

Malawi should be ran based on issues and
not mere selfishness and greed as seen in the
last 10 years.

Church groups urge Parliament to set aside the impeachment proceedings to focus on the food crisis

Parliament on Monday opened debate on impeachment procedures, the first concrete step in moves to oust President Bingu wa Mutharika for allegedly violating the Constitution.

The debate in the Southern African country comes amid warnings by United Nations agencies that five million of the country's 12-million people face hunger after the worst drought in more than a decade.

"The debate on impeachment procedures is really on," said Vin Phiri, a spokesperson for Parliament. "The issue is controversial and unpredictable and I don't know how long the debate will be."

Mutharika on Saturday declared a national disaster over the food crisis, heeding calls from the opposition and church groups who pleaded for more food aid from international donors to avert a famine.

If the motion is adopted by Parliament, it would be the first time in Africa that a head of state is impeached.

Parliament's legal affairs committee, which hammered out the proposed impeachment procedures, presented a report on Friday to the country's 193 lawmakers.

A simple majority will be needed to pass the procedures, but a two-thirds majority is required to adopt an impeachment motion against the president.

Mutharika is repeatedly accused by critics of flouting the Constitution by summarily sacking senior government officials and for using public funds and resources to support his newly formed Democratic Progressive Party.

The impeachment moves started after Mutharika fell out with his mentor and predecessor Bakili Muluzi, and founded his own political party after winning elections in May last year.

Muluzi came to power in 1994 in Malawi's first multiparty elections, ending three decades of iron-fisted rule by the country's founder-president Kamuzu Banda.

The political upheaval came as international aid agencies were scrambling to bring in food aid to Malawi where the annual grain production this year totalled 1,3-million tonnes, far below the 2,2-million tonnes needed to feed the country.

Church groups have urged Parliament to set aside the impeachment proceedings to focus on the food crisis.

But Muluzi's party, the former ruling United Democratic Front, is standing firm, saying there are eight grounds for impeaching the president.

"Most of them are not serious grounds ... the impeachment process is more political than legal because it's a question of parliamentary numbers and it's Parliament which decides which are serious grounds," said political scientist Boniface Dulani.

If Mutharika is impeached, Vice-President Cassim Chilumpha, who is close to Muluzi, would assume the post of president.

According to the report on the impeachment procedures, the speaker will summon the president to appear before the House once Parliament, which sits in the capital, Lilongwe, decides to vote on a motion of impeachment.

The summons will outline the breaches of the Constitution that the president is charged with, according to the report said.

The house will then debate the motion of indictment, which can only be adopted by a two-thirds majority.

An impeachment tribunal is to be set up within 21 days after the indictment motion is passed to make a final ruling on Mutharika's fate. -- Sapa-AFP

Malawi Law Society wants Bakili Muluzi probed on his Corrupt wealth 12/31/2004, 11:53:18 AM

A cross-section of lawyers on Wednesday called on the Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB) to probe former president Bakili Muluzi to establish how he amassed wealth during his 10-year reign. Minutes of a symposium on “The law and the recovery of benefits unjustly accruing to public functionaries: Solutions for Malawians” which took place in Blantyre indicate that graduating lawyers from Chancellor College and their lecturers asked ACB director Gustave Kaliwo to probe Muluzi.

According to the minutes, a graduating student Chrispine Sibande asked Kaliwo to investigate Muluzi which the ACB director refused, saying nobody has complained to the bureau against the former head of state. Kaliwo is quoted as having told the symposium that there is no complaint of any corrupt conduct against Muluzi. But Sibande with the support of law lecturer Thoko Ngwira said ACB should not wait for a complaint but probe Muluzi using Section 32 of the Corrupt Practices Act (CPA) to investigate the former president. Section 32 of the CPA says the ACB may investigate any public officer where there are reasonable grounds to believe that such public officer maintains a standard of living above that which is commensurate with his present or past official emoluments or other known sources of income.

An investigating officer at ACB James Chagona said the bureau could use what was raised to assess whether it warrants an investigation against Muluzi. But Muluzi’s spokesman Sam Mpasu said he does not understand the basis of the call because people are not saying anything on how much wealth the UDF party chairman has. “Secondly, although he went into politics, Dr. Muluzi has always been a businessman who put his businesses into a trust. The Constitution provides a right for economic freedom and people just can’t jump to conclusions that if a person is wealthy, then he is corrupt,” said Mpasu.

The symposium, organised by the Faculty of Law of the University of Malawi, and which was attended by Attorney General Ralph Kasambara and Director of Public Prosecutions Ishmael Wadi, agreed that government should look at whether property found to have been amassed through corrupt means could be recovered through a civil matter and not only to have people convicted through criminal procedures as is the case at the moment. Vice Chancellor David Rubadiri opened the symposium. Some sections of the society including non-government organisations have been calling for investigations on Muluzi.

Malawi MPs eye law to impeach president, donor wary-Reuters

BLANTYRE, Oct 10 (Reuters) - Opponents of Malawian President Bingu wa Mutharika will try to push through draft legislation this week they hope will lead to his impeachment, despite Western warnings this could slow the flow of food aid. Wa Mutharika's former allies in the United Democratic Front have made a series of public attacks on the president, accusing him of violating the constitution and misusing state funds. They want to impeach him, but while the constitution allows a presidential impeachment, it does not set out how to do it. Parliament, where no party has a majority, is due to debate new legislation governing impeachment procedures from Tuesday. The high commissioner of Britain, Malawi's biggest bilateral aid donor, said last week that opposition attempts to impeach wa Mutharika had sparked a political crisis that was distracting the government and could make it hard to get aid to millions of hungry Malawians. The stakes are high as Malawi is trying to win forgiveness for debts of over $2 billion and grappling with food shortages caused by drought and AIDS that have left 5 million people -- nearly half the population -- in need of urgent food aid. "It is unfortunate that the opposition will not be deterred by the donor threats, because the donor interests and (those) of the opposition are different," University of Malawi politics lecturer Boniface Dulani told Reuters. "If they went ahead to stop aid, that would only strengthen the opposition's resolve to impeach Mutharika," he said. Dulani doubted if the opposition could amass the two-thirds majority needed to impeach wa Mutharika despite a series of defections that have hit his administration. But analysts say wa Mutharika's opponents could probably muster the simple majority required to pass the new legislation, which would govern parliamentary procedure for impeachments. Social Development Minister Clement Chiwaya dealt a further blow to wa Mutharika's administration when he resigned publicly late on Sunday at an opposition rally in the UDF stronghold of Mangochi, some 260 km (160 miles) southeast of Blantyre. "I cannot continue with a collapsing government," Chiwaya told Reuters on Monday. FORMER ALLIES The wave of opposition to wa Mutharika has its roots in his own zealous fight against corruption, which has earned praise from foreign donors but lost him support among powerful veterans of the administration of his predecessor and erstwhile champion Bakili Muluzi. Some observers worry that legislation is being tailored to attack wa Mutharika, who has denied the accusations against him. "It is not wrong for the opposition to table the impeachment procedures because the constitution does not provide for them, what is wrong is the way everything is targeted at Mutharika," said politics lecturer Mustapha Hussein. The UDF, under whose banner wa Mutharika took office last year, accuses him of violating the constitution and misusing state funds to buy a car and to pay for his grandchildren's education. In the last parliamentary sitting legislators listed 11 reasons to indict the president, including the claim that he broke the law when he decided to quit the UDF and form another party earlier this year.