By Apengie Apengire
President Peter Mutharika returned to State House on a mandate built around “proven leadership,” with a manifesto that promised delivery, transparency, and a government that listens. That vision is now being hampered from within, and the most visible obstacle sits in a ministry that should be enabling it.
The Minister of Information and government spokesperson, Shadrick Namalomba, was entrusted with one of the most demanding portfolios in any administration. Information is not a ceremonial post.
It is the bridge between policy and the public, between the presidency and the people. Yet the bridge is broken. A pattern of unanswered calls, ignored questionnaires, and media blackouts has turned the Ministry of Information into a wall rather than a window.
If the President continues to sleep on the line of duty and refuses to act, he will be disappointed by a failure that was preventable. The evidence against Namalomba is not abstract. It is documented in newsroom after newsroom, and it is consistent.
Editors and reporters from public and private media houses say the Minister does not pick up the phone when contacted on breaking stories. Questionnaires sent for balance and clarification are received but never returned, often for days, until deadlines pass.
The result is predictable and damaging. Stories run without the government’s side, government later complains that it was not consulted, and the public concludes that the administration is either hiding something or incompetent.
The irony is brutal. The same government that instructs media to “always seek information or clarification before they print” has placed a spokesperson who makes that instruction impossible to follow.
The job of a government spokesperson is to speak. When the spokesperson goes silent, the government goes absent. At that point, perception becomes policy. In a democracy, perception left unchallenged becomes reality, and reality punishes presidents at the ballot box.
The damage goes beyond bad press. Mutharika’s vision, as outlined in the DPP manifesto and subsequent State of the Nation Addresses, rests on economic recovery, public sector reform, social protection, and restoration of trust in institutions.
None of those pillars can stand without communication. Economic recovery needs investors who believe the policy environment is stable, and investors read local media before they read government gazettes.
Public sector reform needs a civil service that understands the direction, and civil servants watch the 8 o’clock news like everyone else. Social protection needs beneficiaries who know where and how to access support, and that requires timely, accurate dissemination through radio, print, and digital platforms.
When the Minister of Information is unreachable, the entire communication chain collapses. Ministers begin briefing on their own, often contradicting each other. Misinformation fills the vacuum. The President’s voice arrives late, diluted, or not at all.
That is not how proven leadership looks. That is how governments lose the narrative, and with it, legitimacy. The defence that Namalomba is “busy” does not hold. Every Minister of Information is busy. The portfolio is demanding by design. That is why the holder must be responsive, systems-oriented, and media-literate.
Responsiveness means answering the phone, or ensuring that a director, a principal secretary, or a press officer does so within minutes. Systems-oriented means establishing a 24-hour turnaround policy for questionnaires, a weekly press briefing schedule, and a rapid response desk for crises.
Media-literate means understanding that a journalist’s deadline is not negotiable, and that silence is itself a quote. By all accounts, Namalomba has failed on each count. He inherited a ministry with structures, staff, and protocols, yet the complaint from media is that access has worsened.
That is not workload. That is disposition. It reflects a gatekeeper mindset that treats information as a favour to be granted, not a duty to be discharged. The political cost is already accruing.
The DPP won on the promise that it had learned from past mistakes and would govern better. Each story that runs with “government was not available for comment” erodes that promise. Each correction that government issues days later looks defensive and weak.
Opposition leaders are now using the information gap to frame government as arrogant and detached. Civil society groups that once gave the administration the benefit of the doubt are citing the communication breakdown as evidence of a deeper governance malaise.
Donors and development partners, who fund much of the social protection the President wants to digitise and scale, read the same papers. When they see a pattern of non-response, they question transparency, and when they question transparency, disbursements slow.
The President’s good plans cannot survive a bad messenger. Moreover, Namalomba’s performance undermines the very officials who are trying to deliver. The Ministry of Gender meets Standard Bank to discuss financial literacy and inclusion of persons with disabilities.
The Ministry of Agriculture launches a new input distribution model. The Treasury announces a fiscal consolidation measure. All of these require explanation, context, and defence against distortion. That is the information minister’s job.
When he is absent, line ministers are forced into reactive media work they are not trained for, or they avoid the media altogether. The result is policy that is announced but not understood, and policy that is not understood is policy that fails.
Mutharika cannot implement his vision through memos and cabinet minutes. He must implement it through a public that believes and a system that complies, and both run on information. There is also an institutional risk.
The Ministry of Information houses the Malawi News Agency, the Government Press, and oversight of public broadcasters. These institutions set the tone for state communication.
If the minister is disengaged, the institutions drift. Press releases are late or clumsy. Government websites are not updated. Social media accounts go silent during crises. In the information age, that is unilateral disarmament.
The opposition, social media influencers, and hostile external actors fill the space. By the time government responds, the frame is set.
Elections are won and lost on frames. Proven leadership cannot be proven if it cannot be heard. The argument for keeping Namalomba because he is “loyal” misunderstands the nature of loyalty.
Loyalty to a president is not shown by shielding him from tough questions. It is shown by equipping him to answer them. A loyal spokesperson tells the president what the media is asking before it becomes a headline.
A loyal spokesperson prepares the president with facts, not flattery. A loyal spokesperson takes the hit so the president does not have to. By refusing to engage media, Namalomba is not protecting Mutharika.
He is exposing him. He is making the President look absent, unaccountable, and out of touch. That is the opposite of loyalty. That is sabotage by omission.
The recommendation, therefore, is blunt but necessary. President Mutharika must remove Shadrick Namalomba from the Ministry of Information and as government spokesperson, immediately.
The portfolio requires someone who understands that the phone is part of the job, that a questionnaire is not an ambush but an opportunity, and that the media is not the enemy but the medium. The replacement must be announced with a clear service charter: 24-hour response time, weekly briefings, and open lines for all accredited media.
That signal alone would reset the relationship and demonstrate that the President has woken up to the problem. In addition, the President must audit the access structure around him. Namalomba is not the only aide accused of shielding Mutharika from critical voices.
A presidency that is hard to reach is a presidency that is easy to mislead. Proven leadership means taking bold decisions, even when they affect trusted boys. Sleeping on the line of duty is not caution. It is abdication. The public did not vote for Namalomba.
They voted for Mutharika. If Namalomba cannot help Mutharika speak, then he is helping him fail. Finally, this is not about personality. It is about function.
The Ministry of Information cannot be run like a private office. It is a public utility. When the water stops, people complain. When information stops, democracy chokes.
The President’s vision for Malawians — on jobs, on food security, on dignity — will not be judged by what is written in Cabinet papers. It will be judged by what citizens hear, see, and believe. Right now, they are not hearing enough, because the man charged with speaking is not picking up the phone.
That is unacceptable, and it is fixable. But only if the President stops being afraid of taking bold decisions. Remove the gatekeeper. Open the line. Let proven leadership speak for itself, before its silence becomes the story.
