Africa-Press – Malawi. A dramatic confrontation at Parliament has blown open the deepening crisis surrounding the Amaryllis Hotel deal, with the acting principal officer of the Public Service Pension Trust Fund (PSPTF), Boyd Hamela, accusing Daniel Dunga, chief executive of Nico Asset Managers, of misleading lawmakers over the company’s withdrawal from the controversial transaction.
Appearing before the Public Accounts Committee (PAC), Hamela flatly dismissed Dunga’s earlier claims that Nico exited the deal due to investment risks, branding them as false and misleading in a tense exchange that laid bare a widening blame game among key players.
“This was the lie from Nico Asset Managers,” Hamela said bluntly under questioning from PAC chairperson Stephen Malondera. “We tasked them as investment managers to carry out all the necessary analysis for this investment.”
The accusation cuts to the core of the unfolding scandal: whether Nico Asset Managers fulfilled its mandate or is now attempting to distance itself from a deal that has triggered national outrage.
Hamela pressed further, questioning how a firm specifically hired to provide investment expertise could claim withdrawal on the basis of risks it was responsible for identifying in the first place.
“If they did not do that analysis—how the hotel would be operated, the involvement of hospitality experts—then who did they expect to do it?” he demanded, exposing what appears to be a glaring gap in due diligence.
But the hearing took an even more explosive turn when Hamela alleged a potential conflict of interest, claiming that Nico Asset Managers had links to the Oasis Hotel project currently under construction in Lilongwe—raising the possibility that competing commercial interests may have influenced its position on the Amaryllis deal.
The revelations now paint a picture of a transaction riddled with contradictions: an investment manager accused of failing to do its job while claiming risk concerns, a pension fund insisting it relied on that very expertise, and regulators already scrambling to trace and freeze billions of kwacha tied to the deal.
Behind the scenes, the standoff signals more than just disagreement—it reflects a full-blown institutional clash, with each party appearing to shift responsibility as scrutiny intensifies.
For observers, the implications are serious. If Nico failed to conduct proper due diligence, it raises questions about professional negligence. If, on the other hand, PSPTF ignored or bypassed advice, then accountability shifts back to the Fund’s leadership. Either way, the credibility of both institutions is now under intense pressure.
As PAC hearings continue, the confrontation between Hamela and Dunga has become a defining moment in the Amaryllis saga—one that not only exposes cracks in governance and oversight but also reveals a system where, when things go wrong, those at the center are quick to point fingers rather than accept responsibility.
The key question now is no longer just about the deal itself—but about who is telling the truth, and who will ultimately be held accountable.
For More News And Analysis About Malawi Follow Africa-Press
