Mhango insists on Zamba testimony in hotel report

Malawi's parliamentary oversight mechanisms are currently under scrutiny following the insistence by Leader of the House Jappie Mhango that the Public Accounts Committee (PAC) report on the controversial Amaryllis Hotel purchase must include testimony from former Secretary to the President and Cabinet (SPC), Colleen Zamba. Zamba has declined to appear before PAC, citing ongoing criminal proceedings related to the same matter, raising critical questions about the interplay between parliamentary inquiries and judicial processes. This development highlights the robust powers of parliamentary committees in Malawi to summon witnesses, juxtaposed with the rights of individuals facing criminal charges and the principle of separation of powers, creating a significant legal and constitutional impasse that impacts public accountability and governance.

The controversy stems from Zamba's refusal to appear before the parliamentary committee, citing an active criminal case against her concerning the same allegations. Her legal counsel argues that compelling her to testify in a parliamentary inquiry while simultaneously facing criminal charges would violate her rights, creating a complex legal gridlock. This article delves into the constitutional and statutory framework governing parliamentary inquiries in Malawi, the powers vested in committees like PAC, and the legal implications of a senior public official's refusal to testify, particularly when criminal proceedings are underway.

The Public Accounts Committee (PAC) is a crucial standing committee tasked with scrutinizing government expenditure and ensuring accountability in public finance. Its mandate primarily involves examining reports from the Auditor General and investigating whether public spending aligns with legislative intentions and achieves value for money. The Amaryllis Hotel inquiry was launched by PAC due to widespread public concern over the controversial purchase of the hotel by the Public Service Pension Trust Fund (PSPTF), involving allegations of inflated valuations and questionable financial transactions amounting to billions of Kwacha. The Public Finance Management Act, 2022, and the Public Procurement and Disposal of Assets Act, 2025, provide the legislative backbone for ensuring transparency and accountability in such transactions, with the SPC, as a controlling officer, holding significant responsibilities under these frameworks.

Furthermore, the situation brings into focus the doctrine of separation of powers. While Parliament has the power to scrutinize, it must be mindful not to overstep into executive or judicial functions. As noted by legal experts, PAC's role is to receive and scrutinize audit reports and make recommendations, not to conduct audits or executive business itself. The current stalemate, therefore, is not merely procedural but delves into the fundamental principles of governance, accountability, and the boundaries of institutional powers within the Malawian constitutional framework. The lack of robust legal mechanisms to compel cooperation from private entities or to navigate such dual proceedings has also been identified as a weakness in Malawi's legislative framework, with suggestions for adopting models from other jurisdictions like South Africa.

Attorneys advising public officials or those summoned before parliamentary committees must be acutely aware of the National Assembly (Powers and Privileges) Act and the Parliamentary Standing Orders, particularly concerning the powers to summon and the consequences of non-compliance. The resolution of this impasse will likely set a significant precedent for future parliamentary investigations in Malawi, shaping the contours of accountability for public officers and the operational dynamics between the legislative and judicial branches. All eyes will be on how Parliament navigates this delicate balance to ensure both justice and comprehensive oversight are served.