Monday 18 November 2019

The religion of nsima


Relatives from the village visit a brother or sister in town. The town dweller has ‘strange’ eating habits. Tiyi n’buredi for breakfast; rice and beef stew for lunch; and chicken salad for supper. The menu goes on like this until the relatives from the village say their farewells and are soon back at base. The curious ones ask how the folks’ stay in town was. Well the folks who had gone ku’tawuni complain that they were not being given food during their stay. There is mixed reactions all around. And you are probably wondering how the relatives from the village could say that when there was tea and bread; rice and beef stew; and chicken salad to boot. Well, there was no nsima.

Nsima in its two versions – one a grounded, white maize flour and the other a coarse, grounded, brown maize flour – is food in the banal Malawi gourmet narrative. Nsima made from white maize flour is in fact less nutritious than the one made from brown flour (locally called ‘mgaiwa’). And yet in this narrative, nsima made from white flour is for an elite – a pseudo–bourgeoisie – who ooze enlightenment and sophistication. Mgaiwa is for the less dapper; it is for the povo. The thing with nsima though is that it silently and more steadily persuades you into a slumber. I would not call the ‘state of mind’ a siesta. A siesta is more voluntary. The nsima–induced slumber is lethal in the sense that ‘things’ can happen in public which you wish happened in private. Examples of such ‘things’ abound.

The acculturation of nsima as food even influences national policy. It will not matter that there is bumper yield of rice, cassava, kachewere or mbatata; a significant drop in maize yield is equal to famine. It is that simple. It is so one–dimensional. The State will not encourage a diversified diet for the people. No. It will set in motion a disaster relief apparatus that sources maize from elsewhere in order to give people free maize so that they may have nsima. Such is the obsession with nsima that in the face of several scathing critiques of the sustainability of programs such as the Farm Input Subsidy Programme, the State merely tweaks this and that and life goes on.

So; it has been that for 53 years and counting – and in a nsima–induced slumber – Government loans have been hijacked as personal pet projects. The podium–politician announces, “Ndikumangirani nsewu apa.” And once the road is finished, the citizens fall over each other with verses of praise. An infrastructure development project loan – they are rarely grants – inviting showers of blessings.

The national water policy in Malawi is 12 years old and yet, in 2017, an MP rises in the National Assembly to request – not even demand – a borehole for his constituency. This is hyper– tragedy. Should we not be talking of water supply systems for a town, city or district? Indeed, in the same vein of water and sanitation, we have folks vigorously dancing at a ‘handover ceremony’ that they have stopped using the village thicket as their ‘toilet’. All this in 2017.

The energy crisis – nay the electricity power supply crisis – has been soundly vilified.  The State is failing to supply magetsi to 8% of its population. This is near-doomsday. Meanwhile, the same State has failed to absorb almost 70% of ‘other–people’s money’ to reinvigorate the same electricity power sector. There are more than tell–tale signs of corruption that have had a strangle–hold on the main players in the sector. The foot dragging by those who must rein in errant types only points to old boys’ club mentality.

Our internal debt is some stratospheric billions of Kwacha. No one has convincingly explained to the citizens how we got to where we are in the first place. Should we hold anybody – a public officer for example – accountable for taking us down the abyss as a country? In any event, the public officer is protected by an immunity provision in the law that precisely grants him immunity for action – even in cases of blatant neglect of duty – during the course of his duty. We have – very, very rarely – prosecuted a public officer for neglect of duty. So; we burn a grown man for the petty theft of a mobile phone handset. And we then hire an army of ‘prominent’ lawyers to defend the pot–bellied dude accused of stealing government dosh. And non–lawyers stand aside in awe of the ‘wealth’ of this pot–bellied fool.

There are calls – lately – for a citizen–driven accountability and transparency structure in the State system. I have written before about active citizenship under this column. What I did not say last time is that the State ‘expects’ each citizen as an individual to be responsible. Similarly, the exercise of the legal and political authority must be done responsibly. The ‘exerciser’ is to be responsible to the citizen as an individual and as a collective. The challenge – as I see it – has been that the strategy of holding the ‘exerciser’ of State authority to account happens at the collective and not the individual level of citizenship.

Nsima–yi tikanachepetsa. It has led to a nation–wide self–hypnosis that has not been very helpful at all. In 2018, let us get back to work. And harder.

The Stones Must Cry Out


On 30 December, 2017, this column published my piece entitled ‘The religion of nsima’. The piece was re-published on 27 January, 2018. The piece is, at once, a frustrated tirade, and, at the same time, a call to action. The frustrated tirade side of it highlights the nation–wide self–hypnosis afflicting the motherland. The call to action stressed that, in 2018, we must get back to work. And harder. I further stated that the State ‘expects’ each citizen as an individual to be responsible. Similarly, the exercise of the legal and political authority of the State must be done responsibly. The ‘exerciser’ is to be responsible to the citizen as an individual and as a collective. I further stated that the challenge in Malawi has been that the strategy of holding the ‘exerciser’ of State authority to account happens at the collective and not the individual level of citizenship.

2018 draws to a close in two days’ time. It seems to me that some of us did go to work in the year. And worked harder. But unfortunately, it was never in advancing the agenda of the country. Throughout the year, we have had one disheartening story after the other.

The electricity sector in this country continues to disappoint the citizenry. We have been reduced to ‘proudly boasting’ about an hour’s power ‘ON’. The other day, we even went to that border town, clad in specially made golf shirts and zirundu, to jump and prance about some 20 megawatts from ba-Lungu. All this has happened in the wake of the pomp surrounding the arrival of majeneleta. All this has happened in the aftermath of the story of alonda who ‘drunk’ themselves silly on 3 million litres of mafuta.

Various pieces of this column have proffered critiques, opinions and what not on a plethora of subjects: The 50+1 debate on the determination of the presidential vote rages on. All parties seem unanimous in their preference for the first-past-the-post system. We shall, therefore, one day have a President Elect with as little as 10 per cent of the national vote. (What with 50+ political parties registered under our law.)

The quality of governance can be better. True to form, the State President and the State Vice President have fallen out. (The State Vice President is now the leader of the Muv’menti.) The constant fall out of the State President and the State Vice President points to the failure of our podium–politics to recognise and embrace the constitutional conventions that must complement the text and practice contained in the Constitution of the Republic. Our podium–politics can be super–petty at the expense of the national good.

The intraparty democracy in this country remains a challenge. Our main political parties have a story or two they wish never found the light of day. ‘Primaries’ for the election of ma-shadow have not been drama-free. The 50:50 campaign for the empowerment of women politicians seems to have been sabotaged by entrenched patriarchal tendencies. Women are even at the wrong end of insults from members of Cabinet. (Sorry; it is not all women. It is two women.)

Our political public officers continue to take the citizenry for fools. The purported explanation of the K4 billion bounty in Parliament; The 145; Kaloshwe; and them. All of these leave a lot to be desired. Za-Esikomu sitinena. Not only are our political public officers taking us for granted, they have gone a notch up and are now re-writing the country’s history of the nationalist, independence struggle. Public finance mismanagement continues like nobody’s business. Sometimes, one has to ask: Where is our umunthu?


In this column, I have previously contended that a good education implies attainment of knowledge.  An uneducated general population lack knowledge. Knowledge is a resource of power.  A ‘knowledgeless’ society is powerless. A lack of ‘power–knowledge’ shall imply that a whole general population is incapable to critique. Critique is an integral part of governing. Political yobism, in this country, has arisen out of paucity for critique among the citizenry. Critique shall be important as the political campaigning gets fierce in the New Year.


My mother, like most folks of her generation, is extremely religious. This generation has passed on their fierce belief in a Supreme Being to their offspring. So; every 5.30 am, it is morning devotion; at 9 am, women’s choir meeting; at 2pm, church projects committee meeting; at 5pm, evening devotion; and at the weekend, Christian warriors meeting. Week in. Week out. I think my mother and her friends at her church have already negotiated the narrow path to Heaven.

My mother and her friends symbolise the typical Malawian. (You can substitute the reference to Christianity for any other faith.) The belief in God in this country is palpable. There is no prize for guessing that in 2019 there shall be a national day of prayers for free and fair elections.

It is okay to pray. It is actually cool if you are that inclined. But God gave us a brain. After all the praying; speaking in tongues or whatever it is, is done, let us remember to use our brains.

The stones must cry out.
Paja–nso Nsima–yi tisiye. Wawa.

The right to no oath (sin'lumbira)


An oath, in simple terms, is an invocation to the gods to bear witness that one’s statement, promise or commitment is true. It is a unique and loaded act of promising. The person taking the oath is saying that I am prepared kuwona malodza if I break my promise or commitment. Historically, oaths are the truth. Any disputation of an oath is blasphemous. Indeed, the god – the supreme being – as a witness links oaths to religion and the occult. Oaths, especially in the context of pledging loyalty to the Sovereign, are critical. The ceremony of the oath is equally important: the precise wording, the gesture and the location. Any departure from the accuracy of the oath invalidates it. [Chief Justice Lovemore Munlo, SC had to repeat certain phrases in the Oath of the Office of the President during the inauguration of Joyce Banda as President of the Republic of Malawi. The repetition was to ensure that the exact wording of the oath has been followed.]

Scholars have observed that oaths of office are oddly pervasive in largely liberal–democratic constitutional orders. Oaths commit public officers to the mandate of their office. However, the bonding is done through the invocation of divine or religious sanction in the discharge of duty. This is where the paradox of the oath of office lies. Liberalism is said to be based on purported secular modernity. In other words, government must be based on the rationality of thinking and not deferred to some amorphous power or centre of morality. An oath of office brings together the relationship of religious conviction, moral principle and political power. The oath – as a theological construct – rattles the secularity of liberal constitutionalism. Hence, oaths (or affirmations as their secular adaptations) remain endemic in our public law and administration.

The Constitution of Malawi does not declare Malawi a theological Republic. The Constitution –rooted as it is in liberalism – portrays its secular underpinnings in the Preamble by the ‘[p]eople of Malawi’ ‘[h]ereby adopting’ the Constitution. At the same time, all elected public officers (the Presidency, Members of Parliament or Councillors) are required to swear or solemnly affirm their allegiance to the Constitution. The oath of the Presidency, for example, states,

 

“I, […] do solemnly swear that I will well and truly perform the functions of the high office of President (or Vice-President) of the Republic of Malawi, and that I will preserve and defend the Constitution, and that I will do right to all manner of people according to law without fear or favour, affection or ill–will. So help me God.”

 

Technical–public officers are similarly required to take an oath or affirmation. And Judges too.  All these must equally “do right to all manner of people according to law without fear or favour, affection or ill–will.” And God must help them.

 

The oath of the Presidency, for example, commits the relevant officers to, among other things, defend the Constitution. In public finance management, it is a constitutional principle of national policy that the State “guarantee[s] accountability, transparency, personal integrity and financial probity and which by virtue of their effectiveness and visibility will strengthen confidence in public institutions.” I will not even delve into the principles of constitutional supremacy, rule of law, equality before the law and others. The constitutional principle I cite states, in part, that an effective and visible [standard] of financial probity strengthens the confidence of public institutions.

 

I have lost count of the many instances of (possible) kusolola of public funds. The motion picture has been so action–packed it has been a tad dizzying. There have been petitions, threats of demonstrations, actual demonstrations, and diatribes in newspaper columns (including this column). The plunder of State resources has not relented. Those who took oath to defend the Constitution have not done any defending so far. Meanwhile ndalama za a-Malawi nzu’nka nu’pita.

 

That is why I think there should be a right to no oath (Ine sin’lumbira).  The pomp and ceremony that engulfs the taking of the oath of office must be accompanied by a flip, albeit short, lecture that explains to a would–be oath–taker the implications for ignoring the Constitution and the laws of Malawi. If a would–be oath–taker declares that he or she cannot live up to the high levels of integrity envisaged by our laws, then they should perhaps not become the elected or technical public officer they seek to become.

 

Otherwise, n’tawuni–mu akuti masikombingo achuluka.

Electoral despotism (A'mbani mwayima)


In less than six months’ time, eligible voters in Malawi will line up at various polling stations across the country to cast their votes in order to determine who shall be given the mandate to assume public offices in the Presidency, the Legislature and the Local Government Authority system. The date to cross on our 2019 calendars in this respect is 21 May, 2019; tsiku lodzasankha Pulezidenti, a-Phungu ndi ma-Khansala.

The official campaign period shall be declared in March, 2019. However, true to form, we are well and truly in campaign mode right now. (The cheeky ones amongst you are probably saying we went into campaign mode on 21 May, 2014 – a day after the 2014 tripartite elections.) APM and his team are hitting the trail holding ‘development rallies’; cutting ribbons on new Gaff’ment projects; and laying new stones to replace old stones – as promised pulojeketi continue to lay in abeyance! On the other side, the frontrunners seem to be SKC, Rev Laz and Amayi. Are there others? Who knows.

If we may locate Malawi in the wider African prism, scholarship has long arrived at a consensus that multiparty politics and elections is not the same as electoral democracy. There is acknowledgement that the African polity has witnessed an uneven electoral playing field, unashamed manipulation, violence and intimidation. Indeed, in Africa, the formal electoral process ushers in a government that (often) has no respect for the rule of law. The African electoral system – looked at this way – is a process of legitimation. In the academy, there is an army of scholars dealing with this phenomenon which they call ‘Electoral authoritarianism’ (Folks like Andreas Schedler & them out there; and Nandini Patel, Comrade Che & them locally).

I highlight here the lessons we have not learnt as a country when it comes to the electoral process. Second, I also highlight what Dick Snyder has called ‘extra-electoral factors’ as we continue on this journey to 21 May, 2019.

First, the process: We continue to treat an election in this country as an event and not a cycle. When we voted on 20 May, 2014, for example, did we put the systems in place in readiness of the next voting day, namely, 21 May, 2019? Each general elections post-1994 has witnessed knee-jerkism by those we have entrusted in managing the elections. It is as if we suddenly wake up from a deep slumber only to be told that that there is an election tomorrow. Voter registration, polling station management, ballots collation; all these leave a lot to be desired. Right now, we have ‘kits’ being found in Mpanyila and our Commissioners are only – now – claiming the found ‘kits’ when they did not declare the ‘kits’ lost in the first place.

There are also a number of legal m’kute we have not resolved in our electoral system. Two examples come to mind. The first example I may post here relates to the meaning of ‘majority’ in the context of the presidential poll. The issue came up in the Gwanda Chakuamba (Mwabera Voti) Case of 1999. The courts followed simple majority. The lawyers will tell us that nkhani yatha. I remain of the view that it is a matter that should be resolved – definitively – outside the courts.

The second example relates to the obligation placed on the Electoral Commission to announce the election results within 8 days after voting has closed. A case came up after the tripartite elections of 2014. Depending on which ‘colour’ you are, Justice Kenyatta Nyirenda is either a hero or a villain. The wider point here is this: In the intervening period between 2014 and 2019, no one in the podium–politics class has forcefully argued for the amendment of the relevant section in the electoral law relating to announcement of election results. Kwakhala kuli zii.

Now on Snyder’s extra–electoral factors: He urges us to ask four questions. First,  who rules?— party elites, a personal leader,  the military, or the clergy. Second, how do rulers rule?— by means of patron-client networks, ethnic ties, or a mass-based party. Third, why do rulers rule?— out of greed, ethnic hatred, or a commitment to a religion or ideology. And fourth, how much do rulers rule?—that is, whether anybody rules and, if so, to what degree. The military, clergy, religion or ideology have not been – to a large extent – critical factors in electoral outcomes in Malawi so far. An unfathomable trilogy of a Messiah, Patron–Client networks, and Ethnicity has been the major determinant of elections in this country. As we approach 21 May, 2019, the Malawian electorate needs to be on the lookout for tired lies, kolaposono tendencies, and ethnically–based hate masquerading as celebrations of ‘culture’.

***

A bout of perceived diarrhoea going on for some 6 months and counting may not be diarrhoea after all. As Gwaladi Joe ‘raps’: ‘Thumbocid musiyeni/Kangoyezesani’. 21 May, 2019 should be the date you seek a new diagnosis as you – the voter – sees fit.

Bioconstitutional algorithm


The French intellectual, Michel Foucault, expounded a thesis on knowledge and power; and more precisely ‘power–knowledge’.  For present purposes and at the risk of some serious reprimanding from Foucauldian purists, a severely reductionist version of the thesis is that power produces knowledge but at the same time power and knowledge imply one another. Knowledge flourishes in the presence of power. Knowledge must involve the understanding of the power dimensions involved in the production of knowledge. Knowledge is a major resource of power.

 

The Constitution obliges the State to actively promote the welfare and development of the people of Malawi by progressively adopting and implementing policies and legislation aimed at achieving, among others, gender equality; adequate nutrition for all in order to promote good health and self-sufficiency, adequate health care, commensurate with the health needs of Malawian society and international standards of health care; enhance the quality of life in rural communities and to recognize rural standards of living as a key indicator of the success of Government policies; provide adequate resources to the education sector and devise programmes in order to eliminate illiteracy in Malawi, make primary education compulsory and free to all citizens of Malawi, offer greater access to higher learning and continuing education; The Constitution also states that the State shall promote national goals such as unity and the elimination of political, religious, racial and ethnic intolerance. Regarding economic management, the Constitution states that the State shall nurture a market economy and long–term investment in health, education, economic and social development programmes in order to achieve a sensible balance between the creation and distribution of wealth among the people of Malawi. I am quoting the Constitution liberally here. The point is that those of our public officers that are obliged to develop and implement national policies are not doing the people of Malawi any favours. It is what they are paid for.

 

I went through the State funded education system in Malawi between 1978 until 1997 when I left the college that the gods apparently love the most. The education system had its challenges but we cannot compare with the tragedy of our system today. Folks who cannot afford to pay the fees that private schools are charging are bound to get a raw deal for their child. It is a situation where if you are an office messenger in the public sector, your child will probably be an office messenger as well if not worse off.

 

Is it not treasonous that we continue to hear of theft of drugs in public hospitals (that is when the drugs were available)? Our mothers continue to needlessly die during child birth. Children dying because of lack of this or other. How much does it cost to fix an elevator? How can we have a whole poster at a referral hospital announcing: ‘Do not charge for carrying patients’?

 

The socio–economic profile of the country reveals stagnation. The economy has remained perilously agro–based. The poverty levels continue to grow. There are less than 250,000 main telephone lines in the country. There are less than 400,000 internet users in the country. There are five ports on the shores of Lake Malawi. There are less than 2,000 kilometres of rail line in the country. There are less than 10, 000 kilometres of tarmac roads in the country. I went to Robert Laws Secondary School in 1988 and left in 1992. The road from Jenda to Embangweni did not have tarmac. It does not have tarmac today. [Someone is shouting construction is underway. I will celebrate when the road is finished.]

 

There has been a pettiness; a laissez faire attitude to governing in this country. We can do better. At the moment, our main political parties are deep in throwing mud at each other. No clear explanation of what plans are afoot for governing between 2019 and 2024.

 

The Constitution presupposes a critical citizenry that demands that those who exercise the political and legal authority of the State do so following a system – an algorithm – that is founded on the values of the Constitution itself. A bio–constitutional algorithm. So far, the country has been corrupted by different shades of political malware taking the country in a meaningless merry–go–round.

 

If a good education implies attainment of knowledge, it follows that an uneducated general population lack knowledge. If knowledge is a resource of power, then a ‘knowledgeless’ society is powerless. A lack of ‘power–knowledge’ shall imply that a whole general population is incapable to critique; I dare say. Critique, I argue, is an integral part of governing under a bio–constitutional algorithm. The absence of critique in our country has led to the political yobism we witness around us. Critique is not merely pointing out that there is a problem. It is a sustained pursuit of a culprit and calling the culprit to account. We rarely do that hence our public officers – especially the political–public officers – have been getting away with murder. As the political campaigning gets fierce, the citizenry ought to see through the (most likely) empty rhetoric that will bombard them.

 

Mongokumbutsana. Nsima–yi tisachepetse. Nsima–yi tisiyiretu.

 

 

BeBe Nation


On 30 December, 2017, I pleaded here that nsima–yi tikanachepetsa. 18 weeks into the New Year, it has not only been raining, it has been pouring. Everywhere one turns, it is a disheartening story after another. The economy continues to limp (I will not clap hands when all we have gotten is more ngongole), the education sector has no signs of recovery, and the health sector – according to the print media – is in fact collapsing.

I have written here before about the lack of intra–party democracy in this country. The events of the last few weeks in the main political parties leave a lot to be desired. The folks in Red are serving each other one injunction and some; the folks in Yellow are tussling over zida za bandi; the folks in Orange have banished from their ranks those who claimed the big mpando for themselves; the folks in Blue are anti–makanda; and AforD now has two presidents.

I have seen the constitutions of the Malawi Congress Party, the United Democratic Front, the People’s Party, the Democratic Progress Party and Alliance for Democracy (AFORD). All these founding documents are robust documents and – certainly from1994 – mirror the values of the Constitution of the Republic. And these values may be paraphrased as follows: people sovereignty; public and social trust in the exercise of legal and political authority of the State; open, accountable and transparent governing; informed democratic choice; inherent dignity and worth of each human being; equality before the law; and rule of law.

What has been happening in these main political parties is as far away from the constitutional values that I have shared here as is the North Pole and South Pole. The constitutions are good for the formality of registration of the parties according to the relevant law. The text of the constitutions is never genuinely intended to be implemented on the ground. The constitutions are a liability to the gang in each of the political parties that has captured the (biopolitical) power. Hence, we are left to watch a display of smirking, irreducible dimness where the youth are useful as circus clowns painted in party colours running around in midoli-induced trance. The women continue to shake their booties while singing songs with one line lyrics. The men are in some competition about who can shower the most insults. And then finally the Big Kahuna or the Big Mayi stands and speaks. We can do better.


In the same context of intra–party democracy, a divisive debate has erupted in the country on age and political leadership. In the academy, age has very rarely been treated as a concept on its own. Such that studies on the relationship of age and leadership have been scarce if not outright non–existent. The Leadership Quarterly, for example, published, over a twenty year period, one study on the relationship of age and leadership.

Locally, during the constitutional debates of 1993 to 1995, it is not clear from the records that the age (whether minimum or maximum) of a candidate for political office was a sticky issue. So; among other things, if you are 21 years old, you can run for the office of Member of Parliament. If you are 35 years old, you can run for the Presidency. However, the controversy surrounding age arose during the constitutional review of 2006 to 2007 led by the Malawi Law Commission. During this process, certain of the constituents wanted the Constitution of the Republic to prescribe a maximum age limit for presidential candidates. The Law Commission disagreed and stated that “this is a political issue best left to the political process. Political parties should be given enough leverage to field a candidate who is acceptable to the electorate and if this candidate fails to convince the electorate of his or her youthful exuberance, such candidate will be naturally removed by the process.”

In the analysis of the relationship of age and leadership what one finds is that the query must revolve not so much around how old or young you are but on the extent to which you are transformational, transactional or what Hannes Zacher and Others call ‘passive-avoidant’.

Parting shot: The National Statistical Office in Zomba has informed us that 55.8 per cent of the population of Malawi is aged between 0 and 19 years. Those in secondary school, tertiary institutions or gainful work or employment – these are those between 20 and 64 years of age – are 39.9 per cent of the population. The over 65s form 4.3 per cent of the population.

Nsima–yi tisachepetse. Nsima–yi tingosiyiratu.

Into the Coffers 3.0


I intended to write about the 145. But I changed my mind and settled on writing about electoral authoritarianism. I changed my mind yet again after that press conference. That one where members of the Democratic Progressive Party politburo said that the 145 will be refunded to the “donor”, Zameer Karim trading as Pioneer Investments.

There is civil litigation that has been instituted in the High Court of Malawi on account of the 145. The court case is Registered Trustees of Youth and Society versus Greizedar Jeffrey and Charles Mhango (on their own behalf and on behalf of the Democratic Progressive Party), Zameer Karim trading as Pioneer Investments and Innocent Bottomani. Standard Bank Plc, National Bank of Malawi Plc, the Director of the Anti–Corruption Bureau and Dr. Ronald Mangani are parties cited in the case. The case is yet to be resolved by the High Court. For present purposes, I will note that the facts so far reveal that the trail of the 145 is that it is money that arose out of (possible) fraud perpetrated at the Malawi Police Service; a fraud that involves the Payaniya Bizimezi. Payaniya then deposited the 145 into a bank account whose name is ‘Democratic Progressive Party’ and whose sole signatory is the incumbent State President of the Republic, Professor Arthur P. Mutharika.

In the case that I refer to above, the bank accounts belonging to Payaniya and Democratic Progressive Party have been frozen because of court orders that the High Court has issued. The accounts that have been frozen relate to the 145 transaction trail. This means that unless the freezing orders are removed on applications by the affected bank account holders, no transactions can take place using the respective bank accounts. A–Payaniya sangatape khusa mu akawunti–mo. Kwinakonso bwana–wo cheke akalemba chibawunsa.

The press conference that the members of Democratic Progressive Party politburo held raises more questions than answers. Where will the refund of the 145 come from? It cannot come from ‘The Account’; that account is frozen. Where will the refund be made? Akawunti ya Payaniya ayamba atseka a–Khothi. Besides, should it not be the sole signatory of the Democratic Progressive Party’s account – the State President – explaining to the people of Malawi how moneys in an account he is in charge of got into the account in the first place? Why is it that overzealous ‘pseudo–proxies’ have bombarded us with zillion explanations regarding transactions in an account that they probably did not know existed before that leak? Indeed, since the 145 is proceeds of (possible) fraud at the Malawi Police Service, what are these fervent go–betweens telling Malawians? Is it some unwitting admission of participation in a criminal enterprise unfolding right in front of us? Is that what it is? Beware what you say! There is Republic versus John Chikakwiya and Republic versus Yusuf Mwawa out there!

Beyond the manic mganda of Payaniya and ‘The Account’, as a country we must re–open the debate regarding the extent to which the State President of the Republic is immune to criminal prosecution under the Constitution. I am aware that there is a Private Member’s Motion pending in Parliament on the matter. However, I think it is a matter that the wider Malawian society should reflect on. The purported immunity of the State President from criminal prosecution is covered under section 91 of the Constitution. The section reads as follows:

“(1) No person holding the office of President or performing the functions of President may be sued in any civil proceedings but the office of President shall not be immune to orders of the courts concerning rights and duties under this Constitution.

(2) No person holding the office of President shall be charged with any criminal offence in any court during his or her term of office.

(3) After a person has vacated the office of President, he or she shall not be personally liable for acts done in an official capacity  during  his  or  her  term  of  office  but  shall  not otherwise be immune.”

The prevailing view has been that because of the language under section 91 sub–section (2) of the Constitution, a sitting State President cannot face criminal charges in any circumstance. I differ from this position because of what section 91 sub–section (3) of the Constitution says. The provision says that when a State President leaves office he cannot be liable for things he or she did in an official capacity; underline ‘official capacity’. The question that arises is that what happens when a sitting State President has done things that are clearly unofficial and also reveal criminality? My position is that criminal behaviour cannot amount to the exercise of official functions of the State. It cannot be protected under section 91 of the Constitution. In any case, the exercise of legal and political authority of the State is based on the sustained trust of the people of Malawi. How will the people of Malawi trust a public officer – including the State President – if they discern criminality? How does a public officer – including the State President – discharge the constitutional obligation regarding open, accountable and transparent governing if they are involved in criminality? Perhaps, the High Court can settle the ‘Section 91 Question’ once and for all. I conclude that shenanigans like ‘The 145 Affair’ were never meant to be protected under section 91 of the Constitution. Wawa.

Into the Coffers 2.0


The State’s case: In the months of June to August, 2013, Maxwell Namata stole the sum of MWK14, 439, 966.50 being the property of the Government of Malawi. Second, during the same period, Maxwell Namata, had in his possession the sum of MWK14, 439, 966.50 when he knew or had reasonable grounds to believe that the said moneys were proceeds of crime. The High Court of Malawi agreed with the State. On 21 January, 2015, Maxwell Namata was convicted of, first, the charge of theft of MWK14, 439, 966. 50 and, second, the charge of money laundering in relation to the said moneys. The High Court sentenced Bambo Namata to three years imprisonment on the charge of theft and five years imprisonment on the charge of money laundering. The sentences were to run consecutively. In total, Bambo Namata was to spend eight years kunzande. It was a moment to savour on the part of the State and all disgusted with the plunder of Government moneys within the prism of the infamous Cashgate scandal.

Bambo Namata was dissatisfied with the judgement of the High Court. He appealed to the Supreme Court of Appeal against both the conviction and sentence. In a judgement dated 12 December, 2016 and delivered on 23 March, 2018, the Supreme Court of Appeal acquitted Bambo Namata of the charge of theft and, consequently, the charge of money laundering fell away. If there was no theft there cannot be anything to launder. In a 56–paged judgement delivered by Justice of Appeal Lovemore Chikopa (with Justices of Appeal Rizine Mzikamanda and Anthony Kamanga concurring), the Supreme Court of Appeal has laid down the law as follows: Criminal law and procedure in Malawi must apply subject to the Constitution of Malawi which the is the supreme law of the land. Second, the prosecution bears, at all times, the burden of proving its case beyond reasonable doubt. It is never for a defendant to prove his or her innocence. Proof beyond reasonable doubt is not about certainty. No. it is about a measure of a high degree of certainty. Third, the exercise of the right to remain silent is not an indication of guilt. Fourth, where a defendant gives evidence, the consideration by a trial court should never be a binary of Truth/Falsity. The consideration must be: ‘Is the defendant’s story true or reasonably true?’ Fifth, a trial court is not an interlocutor in criminal proceedings. They are a referee applying the rules of the game as appropriate. And finally, the Supreme Court of Appeal stated that an appellate court must interfere with a sentence only if it is manifestly excessive, manifestly inadequate or it is wrong at law.

The facts in Bambo Namata’s case are as follows: Two cheques, one for MWK14, 439, 966.50 and another for MWK9, 739, 154.29, were issued by the Government of Malawi (through the Ministry of Tourism) in favour of a company called Cross Marketing. Both cheques were collected by Bambo Namata, handed over to an employee of Cross Marketing, deposited into a bank account held by Cross Marketing, cashed and the khusa was then shared by Bambo Namata and an employee of Cross Marketing.

In the High Court, the State had called a witness – who was a director in the Ministry of Tourism. This witness told the Court that there was no contract between Ministry of Tourism and Cross Marketing for anything. The two cheques were not authorised by any bwana in the Ministry. In essence, the two cheques anabedwa. The High Court, among others, relied on the evidence of this director and proceeded to convict Bambo Namata.

The Supreme Court of Appeal was less than impressed with the evidence of the director from the Ministry of Tourism. The Supreme Court noted that the court record of the trial court does not portray the director as a confident witness who provided definitive evidence as to what happened or did not happen. The Supreme Court disagreed with the High Court that the director’s evidence could then lead to the conclusion that Cross Marketing did not have a claim of right to a cheque from Ministry of Tourism. The Supreme Court noted that while the director referred to a record of all contracts issued by the Ministry of Tourism, this record was in fact never produced in court. Zinachitika za m’maluwa; no umboni; no evidence.

There are a number of lessons to be taken home from the judgement of the Supreme Court pa m’ndandu wa Bambo Namata. I will share two here: First, the Supreme Court has said – emphatically if I may add – that courts should not do the prosecution’s job. Courts should not be interlocutors. One flaw in the Namata case is that there was no evidence before the High Court of ‘fraud’ in the generation of the cheques. The second lesson is that the criminal justice system in Malawi – through public finance management laws – needs to re–think what public moneys is. I belong to the school of thought (as demonstrated in Republic v Caroline Savala) that under Malawi’s public finance management laws, public moneys do not cease to be such simply by the accident of a deposit slip. But this is by way of interpretation. Perhaps the law should say so in clear, unequivocal terms.

So; if the State has not proffered evidence of ‘fraud’ in the generation of cheques, the Cashgate prosecution that has been underway for the last three years or so is at the risk of collapsing.

The Harare Spring?


This motion picture was so action packed it kept the audience in the theatre on the edge of their seats. 5 November, 2017, the then First Lady of the Republic of Zimbabwe, Grace Mugabe rebukes the then Vice President of the Republic of Zimbabwe, Comrade Emmerson Dambudzo Mnangagwa- “Who is Mnangagwa?” She shouted while punching her fist in the air. 6 November, 2017, the then President of the Republic of Zimbabwe, Comrade Robert Gabriel Mugabe, fires VEEP Mnangagwa. 14 November, 2017, General Costantino Chiwenga stages a not–coup ‘coup’. In the theatre, we lose all decorum – nay all protocol – of watching a movie. We murmur amongst ourselves: “What will be the next twist in the plot?!” 18 November, 2017, the povo hit the streets in anti-Mugabe protests. 19 November, 2017, a global audience watches the breaking news of a resignation that never was. Finally, 21 November, 2017, Comrade Bob resigns as President of the Republic of Zimbabwe. The end of an era; 37 years long. Comrade Bob went into office a hero – folks dancing to Bob Marley’s ‘Zimbabwe’ on 18 April, 1980. On 21 November, 2017, Comrade Bob went back to ‘Blue Roof’ a villain with folks singing Jah Prezzah’s ‘Mudala Chauya’. And on 24 November, 2017, Comrade Emmerson was inaugurated as the new President of the Republic of Zimbabwe.

What went wrong? It is a problem that is pervasive in Africa. There is a sense of entitlement that endures among those who deem themselves to have been at the front line of an independence struggle; a war liberation struggle; or indeed a popular revolt. In African polities, the twin towers of economic underdevelopment and poverty fan the ambitions of a beneficent dictator. He – they have been “He’s” in Africa – behaves as a Philosopher-King. You cross his path at your peril. This is the influenza that knocked down Comrade Bob – and I must say others on the African continent. African polities have suffered from lack of credible and effective institutions of governance. We have been hypnotized in believing in the “imperial” presidency.

We have come a long way. In Malawi, for example, Under Malawi’s Republican Constitution of 1966, the Presidency was the constitution unto itself. Section 9 of the 1966 Constitution provided that ‘Dr. Hastings Kamuzu Banda shall be the Life President of the Republic of Malawi’. Life President Banda had extensive power under the body of laws in the country: the power to hire and fire; emergency constitutional powers; so–called public security powers; and even the power to declare citizens of the country persona non grata. Hence, for three decades, between 1964 and 1994, Malawi under Banda was a nation under siege. He was Number One Everything.

Even though, the 1994 Constitution is based on a largely liberal democratic order, we have retained a largely powerful Presidency. It is a situation that may haunt Malawians if ever we shall get a Presidency with self–serving monarchical tendencies.

It is well and good to develop robust, high sounding constitutions. It is equally important to build – as I earlier point out – credible and effective institutions of governance. Would Comrade Bob have become the Philosopher-King he became if there were credible and effective institutions on the ground? Would we in Malawi have had an Open Term Bill (Yes; it was an Open Term Bill) presented to Parliament in 2003 if we had credible and effective institutions? Remember khaki envelopes changed hands and the Bill was only defeated by 3 votes. We were that close to degenerating into a second cycle of blatant dictatorship.

In Malawi, we are now moving in a vicious cycle where entrenchment of our democracy through institutions – strong and effective public service, an efficient judiciary and an organized national assembly that provides oversight over the Executive – does not seem to be high on our priorities. The anti-corruption apparatus has been huffing and puffing. There is a lot of flattering to deceive.

I am not sure that I know what it will take us Malawians to be ‘very angry’ against chipwi’kiti in the running of our country. I hasten a suggestion though: The ‘anger’ the Malawians have had against LGBTi rights must be vented for public finance mismanagement, corruption or indeed blatant disregard for clear laws, policies and procedures in the running of the public service widely construed. The mkwiyo must be vented for hegemonic familial relationships, dubious characters in dapper suits and shiny shoes. We risk – ahem – state capture. It should not be taking a not–coup ‘coup’ to sort things out. Institutions must be in place that tell someone when to enter office and when to leave. And many other critical matters in the running of the affairs of the State.

When the governing-proxy do not listen


I prefer to call those that exercise the legal and political authority of the State the governing–proxy. When we refer to public officers as leaders – whether they are technical public officers or political public officers – it creates a delusional sense of superiority that oozes a capture and monopoly to intelligence; know–how. The rest of us do not know anything. After all, we are not the nouveau Maybach–men or Maybach–women.

This sense of entitlement is misplaced. The people of Malawi have always determined which shall be the political party in the majority; which shall be the political party in the minority; and who shall form the Presidency. The act of the people of Malawi at a general election defines the political space. It is their composite consent that legitimates public officers to exercise the legal and political authority of the State.

There is something disheartening that happens to the Presidency and the rest of the Executive when they form government in this country. When our political public officers enter office, they proclaim sound economic management; announce positive inroads in the agricultural sector; and they usually get an excellent score on the ‘democracy barometer’; especially amidst a typical idiosyncrasy of the opposition still reeling from an election loss. Then; slowly but surely, our political public officers develop a certain hot–headness. A hot–headness that says to us: “Go to hell.” This has happened under the three previous Administrations we have had in this country. It is happening now.

If I may be a little nostalgic; in post–Cold War Africa, did we not revel in the promise of more of the Ikem Osidos and less of the Sams depicted in Chinua Achebe’s Anthills of the Savannah? African countries are, in the words of Mwangi Kimenyi, in a ‘poor–governance trap’. What has happened? Beyond the text of the largely, liberal democratic constitutions, it has been business as usual.

What do the people of Malawi want? In light of the Cashgate scandal, Malawians want speedy prosecution of culprits with a follow through of confiscation orders of the property of those who will have been convicted. Malawians want clear evidence of improvement in the provision of essential services. Malawians want more action and less talking. Malawians respect – and will continue to respect – the various ethnic groups that exist in the country. However, it is a no–no when – suddenly – members of a particular ethnic group are seemingly entitled to appointment to public and other offices; and to Government contracts.

Perhaps, we are also not moving as a country thanks to the political network we have. The network is self–reinvigorating. A number of our political public officers in the country are imbricated in the network based on personal connections or social class as opposed to ideology. The absence of ideology has led to the underdevelopment of democratic institutions and to the entrenchment of political patronage. Indeed, politicians have defected, with remarkable ease, from the red shirts of the Malawi Congress Party to the yellow t–shirts of the United Democratic Front to the orange zitenje of the People’s Party and to the blue safari suits of the Democratic Progressive Party and to other colours in between. This has been possible because the principles of a universal, free vote and periodic elections have been absent at intra–political party level in the country.

What the people of Malawi want is very simple. They want drugs in the public hospitals; all weather roads; primary and secondary schools that one can be proud of; public officers who are not merely guardians of rubber stamps as Thabo Mbeki once said. Malawians want to look out to the end of the horizon and quietly smile and say to themselves: “This country is moving forward.”

We sang “Zasintha! Zasintha! There was hope everywhere. We are still hoping. In the words of Achille Mbembe, we have been dancing to songs of repetition and lists; frequent antitheses; the tendency to exaggerate; the common use of hyperbole and expressions that go beyond reality; and preference for imprecise propositions and vague generalizations, complete with constant references to the future. We have been served a “verbal trance”.

When the class of the governing–proxy does not listen, the subaltern speak. On 17 October, 2017, Malawi had by–elections in Nsanje Lalanje constituency, Lilongwe Msozi North constituency, Lilongwe City South East constituency, Ndirande Makata ward, Mtsiliza Ward and Mayani ward. And the subaltern have spoken.

The Maraga Effect


On 1 September, 2017, the Supreme Court of Kenya handed down a judgment that rendered the presidential poll in that country null and void. Under Kenyan electoral law, the electorate goes back to the poll in 60 days’ time – on 17 October, 2017 – to, yet again, elect a State President. The decision of the Supreme Court of Kenya – led by Chief Justice and President of the Court, David Kenani Maraga – has been hailed by commentators as unprecedented on the African continent. I have been made aware of the fact that there are three other instances in recent memory where a presidential poll has been annulled by the courts: Ukraine in 2004, the Maldives in 2014, and Austria in 2016. Otherwise, the annulment of a presidential poll by a court has been unheard of. This demonstrates how tsunami-sque the decision in Kenya is. The decision not only emboldens the independence of the Judiciary but also reinforces the promise of the rule of law globally and, more importantly, on the African continent. Apart from the ‘veiled threat’ from Mweshimiwa Rais Uhuru Kenyatta to ‘deal with’ the judges, the ‘murmurings’ from Kenya are that the decision of the Supreme Court will be respected to the last full stop.

The decision in Kenya has led to parallels being drawn with electoral law frameworks the world over. Indeed, there has been animated debate in Malawi as to what the Malawi courts ought to do if they were faced with a similar scenario to the one in Kenya. I would like us to take several steps back – steps going back some seven years – to appreciate the context of the Maraga Court decision. Kenya adopted a new constitution in 2010. The Kenyan Constitution of 2010 was adopted in the wake of post-election violence in 2007 where some 1,200 people or so lost their lives. The Kenyan Constitution, in relation to election disputes, allows for the determination of election petitions based on irregularity or other matter. The Kenyan Constitution itself spells out – in very clear language – that no President elect can be sworn into office if an election petition has been filed with the Supreme Court (of Kenya) in accordance with Kenyan electoral law. The Kenyan Constitution and electoral law respectively provide further that an election petition regarding a presidential poll shall be filed within seven days from the date of the declaration of a winner of a presidential poll. The Supreme Court shall then hear and determine the election petition within fourteen days from the date of the filing of the election petition with the Court. The decision of the Supreme Court in such matters is final.

Under Malawi’s electoral law, the Electoral Commission must publish in the Gazette and by radio broadcast and in at least one issue of a newspaper in general circulation in Malawi the national result of an election within eight days from the last polling day. The Malawian Constitution states that a President elect shall be sworn into office within thirty days of being elected. The Malawian Constitution or attendant electoral law does not prioritise the determination of election petitions – where they arise – before a President elect can be sworn into office. There is nothing under Malawi law that stops a changu-pamalo swearing into office of a President elect. And true to form, we have had, in this country, three instances of swearing-in ceremonies of a President elect conducted with some remarkable speed.

The Law Commission has just concluded the review of electoral laws in this country. The Commission, among others, considered the ‘immediacy’ and ‘speed’ of the swearing into office of a President elect. The Commission noted that the changu-pamalo swearing into office of a President elect renders an election petition, if one is filed, farcical. Having made this observation, proposals of the Commission do not, in fact, prevent the swearing into office of a President elect even in the face of an election petition challenging the victory of such President elect.

The integrity and legitimacy of an electoral process is assured if all concerns and disputes are fully resolved before a President elect is sworn into office. I will not – even one bit – take away the integrity and professionalism of the Maraga Court in Kenya. I hasten to add, however, that the provisions under Kenyan law regarding the filing and determination of a petition against a presidential poll, and how and when you swear into office a President elect made the task of the Maraga Court less heavy. The ‘breather’ provisions regulating the determination of election disputes and the procedure on swearing into office of a President elect must be re-visited under Malawi electoral law. We may want to face Kenya for lessons on the matter.

The Malawi genus


Last week, Thoko from Bangwe shared with us his views about the on-going national identity registration exercise. He highlights the benefits of a national ID scheme; at the top of the benefits being the possibility of an efficient public service delivery system. By and large, Thoko also highlights the challenges that a national ID scheme may bring; disenfranchisement and the excesses of a nanny State among others.

 

The national identity registration exercise has also revealed a rather unfortunate scenario. Those who consider themselves Malawians – born, bred and walk the soil – and yet they are not ‘black’ or indeed speak ChiChewa/ChiNyanja with an ‘accent’ have had their claims to what I call the Malawi genus questioned or outright thrown into the trash can. These sad stories are awash in both social and print media.

 

The revelations point to a deep-seated narrative of what constitutes the Malawi genus – species – of us the human beings who for one reason or the other call this potato-shaped territory of this Earth home. This deep-seated narrative relates to the conception of ‘identity’. The conception of ‘identity’ has exercised academics, legal and policy makers over the years. The limitations of space here are such that I cannot fully espouse the conception of ‘identity’ in the Cultural Identity school in the academy or its configuration at law and policy. Suffice it say, for present purposes I will seek to share some thoughts on ‘identity’ based on a ‘Belonging’ / ‘Othering’ dichotomy.

 

There are aspects of ‘identity’ that are based on categories such as ethnicity, race, language, religion, a (national) culture, gender, orientation or citizenship. The way we identify ourselves depends, in large measure, on how we feel about, or value, that which we consider as the dominant influence of our being. The feeling (the psyche) or the value-system we attribute to ourselves will inform the dominant weight on that which defines our sense of belonging. In this way, there are some of us who place more weight on one category more than the other in the process of identifying ourselves. In this way, a person may place weight on ethnicity, race, language, religion, a (national) culture or citizenship to differing degrees in order to identify themselves.

 

Othering in relation to ‘identity’ is oppositional. Othering involves a process where oneself conjures an ‘identity’ of difference; of denying. The ‘self’ that is othered is often denigrated as lacking the state of ‘same-ness’. So, we learn that Greeks called – othered – all non-Greeks as barbarians. Barbarians did not have the same-ness of Greeks. Barbarians were different. Barbarians were denied the characteristics of reason, dignity or nobility that defined human-being-ness according to the Greeks. In modern society, the Other may be a race, a religion, gender or nation-state. In other words, the process of othering is almost always underwritten by a sense of superiority.

 

Indeed, othering has been a result of clash of civilizations. This is pervasive in history: The voyages of discovery and the scramble of Africa are some examples. Othering has also been a result of the Freudian ‘narcissism of minor differences’ whereby group A others group B because group B is seen as a threat to the identity and pride of group A. This Freudian dimension has led to the Holocaust, the Rwandan Genocide and the Bosnian Genocide.

 

[A rider: the categories of ‘identity’ may at once be empowering and subjugating. History and context will matter.]

 

So; what is the Malawi genus? Who is in the Malawi genus? The Malawi genus is primarily defined by citizenship. Who becomes a Malawian citizen is down to, generally, the circumstances of one’s birth, the process of naturalization or even as a result of marital relations. Broadly described, our citizenship law allows a child born in the country to acquire Malawian citizenship; a person acquires Malawian citizenship through naturalization on account of long-term residence; and a person acquires Malawian citizenship on account of marriage.

 

The episodes, therefore, of those Malawians who are ‘not-black’ or speak ChiChewa/ChiNyanja with an ‘accent’ and had their claim to u-Nzika questioned or denied are most unfortunate and deplorable. We need some robust reflection in this country. We must realize that the Malawi genus is not composed of a unified and (easily) determined ‘identity’. The Malawi genus is a mosaic of ‘sub-identities’ which – to use the language of Cultural Identity scholarship – is often contradictory or unresolved identities. Hence, in the exercise of State authority, a public officer – at whatever level – must not be clouded by the lenses of skin colour or lingua. We must move from m’Tumbuka, m’Chewa, m’Chawa, Nguru, m’Mwenye, m’Kaladi yada-yada. There are robust ways of verifying one’s Malawi-ness. And one of those ways is not the colour of the skin or (purity of) accent. The othering must end.

13 billion ways to whine


Our local government authorities are governed, at law, by the Local Government Act. Under the Act, a local government authority has the following functions: to make policy and decisions on local governance and development for the local government area; to consolidate and promote local democratic institutions and democratic participation; to promote infrastructural and economic development through the formulation, approval and  execution of district development plans within its jurisdiction; to mobilize resources within the local government area for governance and development; to maintain peace and security in the local government area in conjunction with the Malawi Police Service; to make by-laws for the good governance of the local government area; to appoint, develop, promote and discipline its staff; to cooperate with other Councils in order to learn from their experiences and exchange ideas; and to perform other functions including the registration of births and deaths and participate in the delivery of essential local services.

The essential services that a local government authority must discharge include the provision of environment and health services, physical planning, parks and recreation, works services, education services, development, and finance services to mention a few. So; as residents of local government areas, our expectation – a legitimate one for that matter – is that our council shall be responsible for the administration and management of good access roads that are well lit at night; the administration and management of well-resourced health centres; the administration and management of local education authority (‘LEA’) primary schools with well-ventilated classrooms to boot (no learning under some tree please); the administration and management of commodities markets; and indeed, the administration and management of kuntaya for our zinyalala.

The Local Government Act states that the Minister may declare a local government area as a ‘township’ or ‘municipality’. The Act goes on state that it is the prerogative of the President of the Republic to confer the title and dignity of ‘City’ on a municipality. Hence, the designation of ‘City’ on a local government area is no small matter. It is such a big deal. In 2017, we have four cities in Malawi: Blantyre and Zomba in southern Malawi, Lilongwe in central Malawi, and Mzuzu in northern Malawi.

Local government authorities – and these include our cities – have the power to raise money, whether by means of rates or borrowing. The generation of revenue ensures that a local government authority is capable of discharging to its residents the essential services that we have pointed out above: environment and health services, physical planning, parks and recreation, works services, education services, development, and finance services.

In relation to our cities, the average resident does not hesitate to bash the apparently poor services that our city fathers and mothers provide. The resident will moan about the potholed roads in our neighbourhoods; he will whinge about the long in disuse sewage system; and what about the no-show waste collection truck or indeed the pitch dark nights because the street lights are not working.

You – the resident – must hold your peace and listen to this: If we restrict our story to the four cities in the country, the city councils are owed a little over 13 billion Kwacha in unpaid city rates. Lilongwe residents are the worst with some 8 billion Kwacha due and owing to the city authorities; Blantyre residents owe some 2.8 billion Kwacha; and Mzuzu and Zomba residents are some 1.2 billion Kwacha respectively in the red.

City rates – as a form of revenue generation by a local government authority – are a tax that a resident must pay to the council for the services that the council renders. The non-payment of city rates that is pervasive in our cities is most unfortunate. As residents, we cannot have our cake and eat it. If we are of the view that we deserve five star provision of essential services from our councils, let us pay our city rates.

It is our civic duty to pay city rates when they are due. I am reliably informed that some city rates’ accounts have been due and owing as far back as 1999. This is simply deplorable. A kid born in 1999 will be eligible to vote in the general elections of 2019. It shouldn’t be this bad. The Malawian Constitution also states that every individual has a duty towards the State with due regard, among others, the common interest. Therefore, this is the message: Before you grumble about that potholed road, the pitch dark night in your downtown and what not; do me a favour and pay your city rates. Once you will have paid your city rates, you will have earned your right to whine about the perceived misconduct of a local government authority.