By Lyson Swala
When a government comes to power promising a return to ‘proven leadership’, the first test is not how loudly it celebrates victory, but how honestly it handles public money.
The Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) government is barely a year into its return to power, yet a disturbing pattern is beginning to emerge such as allegations involving enormous sums of public or politically connected money, controversial government transactions, questions over accountability, cyber-related scandals and, now, the arrest of one of the party’s prominent manifesto architects, Collins Magalasi.
To call every allegation ‘thieving’ as a matter of established fact would be irresponsible,but to ignore the accumulating questions would be even more irresponsible.
The issue is whether these scandals are isolated incidents or symptoms of a political culture returning with the DPP.
Magalasi’s case is particularly politically uncomfortable for the DPP.
He is not an ordinary party’s supporter.
He chaired the DPP’s 2025 manifesto committee and publicly presented major elements of the party’s economic programme before the 2025 election.
His subsequent arrest by Fiscal Police in connection with investigations surrounding the controversial Amaryllis Hotel transaction therefore carries significance far beyond the individual himself.
Police confirmed his arrest, while subsequent reports linked the investigation to alleged multibillion-kwacha cash withdrawals.
The Amaryllis affair is arguably the biggest financial scandal to confront the new administration.
The Public Service Pension Trust Fund proposed to purchase the Blantyre hotel for K128.75 billion, a transaction that generated widespread concern because earlier valuation evidence placed the property at approximately K47 billion.
The transaction raises questions over why pension funds were being committed to a property at such a huge price difference and who stood to benefit from the controversial arrangement.
The scandal deepened when reports emerged that K90 billion had been transferred as part of the transaction and that billions of kwacha were subsequently withdrawn in cash.
Investigators are examining the circumstances surrounding those withdrawals, including who authorised them, who received the money and where it went.
These are precisely the questions that should not be buried under partisan arguments, whose money was it, who moved it, under whose authority, and where did it finally end up?
What makes the affair even more troubling is that parliamentary scrutiny has raised questions about how the hotel transaction was processed.
Former Public Service Pension Trust Fund principal officer George Jim told Parliament that he was pressured to fast-track the transaction without the necessary board approval.
Whether those allegations ultimately survive legal scrutiny remains for the relevant investigations and courts to establish. But politically, the revelations raise a fundamental question,why was a transaction involving the retirement savings of Malawian public servants being pushed through in such controversial circumstances?.
The DPP cannot simply dismiss the Amaryllis questions as opposition propaganda.
Its own senior figures have been forced to confront the controversy, while President Peter Mutharika has said he is following the parliamentary inquiry with interest.
If the government truly believes that the deal was clean, transparent and in the public interest, the simplest answer is to allow investigators, Parliament and the courts to establish that fact without political interference.
There is another disturbing dimension, the government’s handling of corruption cases.
Earlier this year, prosecutors discontinued several high-profile financial-crime cases involving senior political figures and government officials.
The developments generated concern among civil society and legal professionals, who questioned whether the fight against corruption is being applied consistently.
Concerns continue to be raised over the discontinuation of high-profile cases and the potential impact on public confidence in the justice system.
At the same time, serious questions are emerging around cybersecurity and the protection of government information.
The National Oil Company of Malawi (NOCMA) has been caught up in a major cyber-fraud scandal involving hundreds of millions of kwacha, with fraudsters manipulating communications and directing a payment of about US$403,605 to a fraudulent account.
The incident raises serious questions about the security systems protecting a state-owned company entrusted with strategically important national fuel supplies.
And now allegations that Magalasi aided another person in attempting to hack telephone numbers belonging to President Mutharika and several senior government officials have added another extraordinary dimension to the growing scandal surrounding people connected to the administration.
The alleged phone-hacking case is particularly serious because the reported targets include the President and senior government officials, including ministers and the Inspector General of Police.
If the allegations are proven, the matter will go beyond an ordinary criminal investigation and raise questions about national security and the protection of sensitive government communications.
But once again, allegations are not convictions.
The proper response is an independent investigation, evidence and due process,not political protection or political persecution.
More importantly, Malawians deserve to know who was behind the alleged operation, what information was being sought and why.
That is where the word ‘thieving’ becomes politically dangerous but also necessary to interrogate.
Theft of public resources is not merely about someone physically putting money into a pocket. It can also occur through inflated transactions, abuse of public institutions, manipulation of procurement, unexplained cash movements, cyber fraud or the deliberate weakening of institutions meant to protect taxpayers.
Malawi’s history with Cashgate taught every government that corruption thrives when public systems become instruments of political protection rather than mechanisms of accountability.
And this is not the first time Magalasi has faced questions over public resources.
Long before he became the DPP’s manifesto committee chairperson, he faced a K186 million fraud and money-laundering case arising from his time at the Malawi Energy Regulatory Authority (MERA).
Prosecution witnesses testified about procurement involving Vink Enterprise, while the State later completed its prosecution case.
Those earlier proceedings do not establish guilt in the current Amaryllis or phone-hacking investigations, but they make his latest arrests politically impossible for the DPP to treat as insignificant events.
The bigger picture is therefore bigger than Magalasi. It concerns whether the DPP’s return to government is becoming a return to the politics of impunity.
The party campaigned under the banner of ‘A Return to Proven Leadership’, while its manifesto promised sweeping economic transformation.
Malawians did not vote for another cycle in which politically connected people become richer while pensioners, civil servants and ordinary taxpayers carry the cost.
The DPP therefore has a choice. It can treat every investigation as a political attack, defend every accused person before the evidence is tested, and allow suspicion to grow. Or it can demonstrate that its ‘proven leadership’ includes something Malawi desperately needs, proven accountability.
That means publishing the facts surrounding the Amaryllis transaction, allowing the cash trail to be followed wherever it leads, investigating the NOCMA cyber-fraud, establishing the truth behind the alleged phone hacking and protecting investigators from political interference.
It also means ensuring that corruption cases are neither selectively abandoned nor selectively pursued.
The phrase ‘DPP Thieving Begins’ should therefore not be understood as a judicial verdict against the DPP or every person associated with it.
It is a warning about a pattern that Malawians must watch before it becomes normal.
Magalasi’s arrest, the Amaryllis controversy, questions surrounding enormous cash withdrawals, the NOCMA cyber-fraud, allegations involving the hacking of the President’s phone and concerns over discontinued corruption cases have created enough smoke to demand a serious search for fire.
The burden now rests on President Mutharika and his government to prove that this is not a government where access to political power also means access to public wealth or sensitive state information.
If there is nothing to hide, let the investigations run, let the evidence speak and let justice not party loyalty have the final word.
