When oversight comes from within: Why Speaker Suleman’s governance concerns should strengthen, not weaken, the DPP government

* TO THE DPP, the respectful advice is,  therefore, this: Do not necessarily see parliamentary scrutiny as an attempt to weaken your Government — use it as an opportunity to strengthen it

* TO THE SPEAKER: continue defending Parliament’s oversight mandate, but do so through evidence, constitutional procedure, institutional restraint and respect for the Executive’s distinct responsibilities

By Chifi Mhango, Chief Economist & Executive Director-Don Consultancy Group, South Africa

Malawi’s current political debate surrounding the Speaker of Parliament, Right Honourable Sameer Suleman, presents an important question that goes beyond personalities and party politics: Can a senior member of a governing political party raise legitimate concerns about governance without those concerns being interpreted as an attack on the Government he helped bring to power?

In my view, the answer should be yes.

The current disagreement between the Speaker and some officials within the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) deserves to be approached with maturity, restraint and, above all, an appreciation of Malawi’s constitutional institutions.

This is particularly important because the Speaker is not an opposition politician — he is a member of the governing DPP.

The debate, therefore, should not be reduced to the conventional narrative of “opposition versus government.” It is better understood as a conversation about how a governing party, its Members of Parliament and the institutions of State should interact in pursuit of good governance.

And this is where the matter becomes particularly significant.

The Speaker’s DPP membership makes the debate more important, not less. The fact that the Speaker belongs to the DPP should not automatically invalidate concerns he raises about governance.

Indeed, one could argue that his position presents an opportunity for the governing party to demonstrate an important principle — that loyalty to a political party does not necessarily require silence when institutional weaknesses are identified.

The Speaker occupies a constitutional office that carries responsibilities beyond ordinary party politics.

Once elected to preside over the National Assembly, the Speaker has an institutional responsibility to protect the integrity, independence and effectiveness of Parliament.

This does not mean that the Speaker should become an alternative centre of executive authority. He should not — nor should Parliament attempt to run Ministries, departments or public enterprises. But Parliament is also not expected to simply observe the Executive.

The Parliament itself identifies three core functions: legislation, representation and oversight. Its official institutional framework expressly recognises oversight as part of Parliament’s mandate.

That distinction is fundamental — the Executive governs; Parliament scrutinises. Both functions are necessary for a functioning democracy.

His Excellency Prof. President Mutharika’s inaugural address provides an important context. Perhaps the most important context for understanding the Speaker’s concerns is President Mutharika’s inaugural address of 4th October 2025.

The President did not inherit an administration that he described as being in comfortable circumstances. He spoke openly about a country facing an economic crisis, shortages, high borrowing and serious concerns regarding public resources.

Most importantly, he made a very strong political commitment to restoring discipline and fighting corruption.

President Mutharika told Malawians that the country needed hard work and difficult decisions and declared that the era of “looting government” was over.

That commitment should be taken seriously. But an anti-corruption and governance agenda cannot be implemented by the President alone.

It requires institutions; it requires Ministers and public officials who are willing to correct weaknesses; it requires professional civil servants; it requires strong regulatory and auditing institutions.

And critically, it requires a Parliament that is prepared to ask difficult questions about how public resources and public institutions are being managed.

Viewed from that perspective, concerns raised by the Speaker about governance should not automatically be regarded as contradictory to the President’s agenda. They could, in fact, be complementary to it.

A strong President needs a strong Parliament. There is sometimes a tendency in African politics to equate a strong government with a Parliament that rarely challenges it.

That is a misunderstanding of institutional strength.

A genuinely strong government should be able to withstand scrutiny; a strong President should be able to say: “If there are weaknesses in Government, let Parliament identify them and let us fix them”.

That does not weaken presidential authority — it strengthens it.

If the President has committed himself to restoring accountability, then parliamentary oversight becomes an important instrument for helping him identify where Government systems are failing.

The alternative is considerably more dangerous. If officials become reluctant to report weaknesses because they fear political consequences, problems can remain hidden until they become financial, institutional or political crises.

This is why parliamentary oversight should not be viewed simply as an instrument for the opposition — oversight belongs to Parliament as an institution.

What exactly is Parliament supposed to oversee?

Malawi’s parliamentary oversight responsibilities extend well beyond political debate. The National Assembly has responsibilities relating to legislation, public expenditure, Government programmes and the performance of public institutions.

The Public Accounts Committee, for example, is specifically mandated to consider audited public accounts and examine documents relating to financial controls, accounting and auditing of public expenditure.

It is also required to examine whether expenditure was authorised, legally applicable to the purposes for which it was used and undertaken in accordance with relevant rules.

This is an extremely important function.

When Parliament asks why a public institution is underperforming, why expenditure is increasing, why a programme is not delivering results, why procurement is problematic, why a State-owned enterprise is accumulating losses, or why public resources are not producing expected outcomes, it is not necessarily attempting to take over the Executive’s responsibilities.

It is performing oversight. And in a country facing significant fiscal and economic pressures, such oversight is not a luxury — it is an economic necessity.

The governance question is ultimately an economic question. Malawi cannot afford weak governance. Every kwacha lost through poor financial controls, inefficient procurement, institutional inefficiency, unnecessary expenditure or weak management represents resources that could otherwise have been directed towards health, education, agriculture, infrastructure, energy or economic development.

This is why governance reform should not be treated as merely a political subject. It is directly connected to economic performance.

Investors care about institutional predictability; development partners care about public financial management; creditors care about fiscal discipline; businesses care about regulatory certainty; and citizens care about whether public money produces public services.

Therefore, when Parliament raises questions about governance, it is also raising questions about Malawi’s economic future.

A respectful word to the DPP

The DPP’ concerns should nevertheless be acknowledged. A political party that has won an election has a legitimate interest in protecting the mandate given to it by voters.

It is reasonable for party officials to be concerned if they believe statements by senior party members could undermine public confidence in the Government.

That concern should not simply be dismissed. However, there is an opportunity for the DPP to take the debate one step further.

Rather than asking only whether the Speaker’s statements politically benefit or harm the DPP, the party could ask: ‘Are the underlying governance concerns valid?’ If they are not, evidence and institutional processes should establish that.

If they are, then the Government has been given an opportunity to correct them. That should not be regarded as political defeat. It should be regarded as good governance.

The DPP’s strongest response may, therefore, not be to silence criticism, but to demonstrate that it welcomes evidence-based scrutiny while ensuring that constitutional boundaries are respected.

Party loyalty and constitutional duty can coexist

There is an important principle here for Malawi’s democracy. A politician can be loyal to his or her political party while simultaneously fulfilling a constitutional responsibility.

These responsibilities need not always be in conflict. A DPP Member of Parliament can support President Mutharika while asking the Government why a particular programme is failing.

A DPP parliamentarian can support the Government’s economic programme while questioning expenditure.

A DPP committee can summon officials to explain weaknesses in a public institution without becoming an opposition committee.

And the Speaker can defend the institutional authority of Parliament while remaining politically affiliated to the governing party.

This is not necessarily disloyalty — it is parliamentary democracy.

The Speaker also has a national responsibility

Support for the Speaker’s constitutional role should not be interpreted as a blank cheque. He occupies one of the most sensitive constitutional offices in the country.

His interventions should, therefore, be measured, evidence-based and institutionally grounded. Where concerns relate to specific Ministries, departments or public entities, Parliament has established mechanisms through which those concerns can be examined.

Questions can be asked; Committees can investigate; Ministers can be summoned; reports can be produced. Recommendations can be made; and the Auditor General and other accountability institutions can undertake their respective functions.

Where allegations potentially involve criminal conduct, appropriate investigative and judicial institutions should be allowed to determine the matter.

The Speaker’s strongest position, therefore, is not simply to make public statements — it is to ensure that Parliament’s institutional machinery converts legitimate concerns into evidence-based scrutiny and, ultimately, corrective action.

That would make the Speaker’s intervention considerably more powerful.

Malawi should avoid turning institutional questions into personal battles. The present debate also provides an opportunity for all political actors to exercise restraint.

Political disagreements are inevitable

Personalisation of institutional disagreements, however, can damage institutions far beyond the individuals involved.

The question should therefore not be: ‘Who is winning: the Speaker or the DPP?’ The more important question is: ‘Are Malawi’s institutions becoming stronger as a result of this debate?’

If the answer is yes, then the country should welcome the conversation.

Malawi needs stronger institutions, not stronger political personalities. It needs public officials who can disagree respectfully; it needs Parliament that can scrutinise Government without seeking to govern; and it needs an Executive that can accept scrutiny without interpreting every question as hostility.

And it needs political parties mature enough to recognise that institutional accountability ultimately protects the very governments they lead.

The President’s 2025 promise should be the common ground

Perhaps the most constructive way forward is to return to President Mutharika’s own message at his inauguration.

He promised Malawians hard work, difficult decisions and an end to the abuse of Government. Those are not merely presidential responsibilities. They are national responsibilities.

The Speaker can contribute by ensuring effective parliamentary oversight. The DPP can contribute by supporting institutional accountability while maintaining appropriate party discipline.

The Executive can contribute by responding constructively to legitimate parliamentary questions.

And Members of Parliament, regardless of party affiliation, can contribute by putting the national interest ahead of partisan considerations when exercising their constitutional functions.

That is how the President’s governance agenda can move from political rhetoric to institutional practice.

The Speaker should not be an alternative government, but Parliament must be allowed to be Parliament

There is no need for Malawi to choose between a strong President and a strong Parliament. The country needs both.

President Mutharika has a mandate to govern; the DPP has a mandate to support and implement its political programme; the Executive has a responsibility to deliver — but Parliament has a constitutional responsibility to legislate, represent the people and exercise oversight.

The Speaker, as the presiding officer of Parliament, has a responsibility to protect that institutional role. Consequently, the fact that Speaker Suleman is a member of the governing DPP should not necessarily make his governance concerns less legitimate.

If anything, it provides an opportunity for Malawi to demonstrate that political affiliation and institutional accountability can coexist.

TO THE DPP, the respectful advice is,  therefore, this: Do not necessarily see parliamentary scrutiny as an attempt to weaken your Government — use it as an opportunity to strengthen it.

TO THE SPEAKER: continue defending Parliament’s oversight mandate, but do so through evidence, constitutional procedure, institutional restraint and respect for the Executive’s distinct responsibilities.

If both sides can approach the matter in that spirit, what currently appears to be a political disagreement could become something much more valuable — an opportunity to strengthen Malawi’s democratic institutions.

After all, the ultimate test of President Mutharika’s governance promise will not be whether Government is never criticised — it will be whether, when weaknesses are identified, Government has the confidence and institutional maturity to correct them.

That is not a weakness of government — that is what good government looks like.

* As Don Consultancy Group Executive Director of Economic Research & Strategy, Chief Economist Chifipa Mhango specialises in macroeconomic analysis, public policy, and governance across emerging markets, particularly in Africa. He is known for providing data-driven insights on economic trends, fiscal policy, and institutional accountability, with a strong focus on strengthening economic and governance frameworks.