By nyasatimes
Africa-Press – Malawi. The article “MRA Security Contracts Stir Debate” raises serious claims wrapped in emotive language, but in doing so it dangerously blurs the line between legal analysis and public accusation. What is presented as scrutiny risks becoming something else entirely: a trial by media that collapses law, procedure, and constitutional safeguards into suspicion-driven storytelling.
Public oversight of state procurement is necessary in a democracy. But scrutiny must be anchored in law, evidence, and fairness—not conjecture, implication, and selective reading of statutes.
At the centre of the debate is the Malawi Revenue Authority’s publication of an intention to award security contracts valued at K5.4 billion. This distinction matters. An intention to award is not an award. Under the Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets (PPDA) Act, this stage exists precisely to promote transparency, allow objections, and provide space for review before any contract is signed. To portray this legally required step as proof of wrongdoing is not only misleading—it inverts the very logic of transparency.
The article further compounds the problem by conflating an ongoing legal matter involving Minister Alfred Gangata with the procurement process itself. This is a fundamental legal error. In law, an accused person is innocent until proven guilty. The PPDA Act does not impose an automatic ban on bidders merely because they face allegations or pending cases. There is no conviction, no court order, and no legal finding barring participation. To argue otherwise is to replace the rule of law with punishment by presumption.
Section 75 of the PPDA Act, cited repeatedly, has been stretched beyond its meaning. The law empowers procuring entities to assess eligibility and risk based on objective, verifiable criteria—not rumours, headlines, or unresolved accusations. If Parliament intended to disqualify all bidders with pending cases, it would have said so clearly. It did not. The law deliberately balances integrity with fairness, recognising that allegations alone cannot be a basis for exclusion in a constitutional democracy.
Equally troubling is the insinuation that MRA Commissioner General Felix Tambulasi is conflicted because he once represented Gangata in private practice. This argument collapses under basic scrutiny. Lawyers represent clients as a professional duty; they do not inherit their clients’ guilt. To suggest that prior legal representation permanently disqualifies someone from public office is absurd and unworkable. By that logic, vast sections of Malawi’s professional class would be barred from public service.
The article also misapplies Section 88(5) of the Constitution. That provision exists to prevent abuse of ministerial office for personal gain—not to criminalise the existence of businesses owned by politicians, nor to bar them indefinitely from public procurement without proof of influence, interference, or abuse of authority. No such evidence is presented. None.
Crucially, the procurement process itself was conducted through open national competitive bidding, publicly advertised, and evaluated according to law. These facts are acknowledged—but conveniently downplayed. Transparency is not secrecy. Transparency is openness. And MRA complied with the law by publishing the intention to award and inviting objections within the statutory 21-day period.
The outrage over the contract value is similarly shallow. Security for a national revenue authority—covering multiple regions, sensitive installations, and 24-hour operations—will inevitably cost money. To label the figures “indefensible” without benchmarking, market analysis, or operational context is not fiscal analysis; it is emotional arithmetic.
More dangerous still is the broader implication that public institutions should avoid lawful decisions simply to escape controversy. That is governance by fear, not by law. If every procurement involving politically exposed persons is condemned regardless of legality, institutions will become paralysed—not because they are corrupt, but because perception has replaced process.
Accountability does not mean public lynching. Investigative journalism should interrogate facts, test legality, and hold power to account—not imply guilt by association or pre-empt judicial outcomes.
Where concerns exist, the law provides remedies: objections, PPDA review mechanisms, and the courts. What it does not authorise is conviction by headline.
In the end, the real danger exposed by this debate is not proven corruption, but the steady erosion of due process through selective legal interpretation and media-driven verdicts.
Malawi’s democracy will not be strengthened by outrage masquerading as accountability. It will be strengthened by respect for the Constitution, fidelity to procurement law, and unwavering commitment to the presumption of innocence. Anything less is not reform—it is regression.
Source: Malawi Nyasa Times
For More News And Analysis About Malawi Follow Africa-Press
