By Rick Dzida
President Peter Mutharika and Speaker of Parliament Sameer Suleman agreed during a high- profile meeting at State House on September 12, 2026, to immediately halt 12 planned joint ad hoc parliamentary investigations.
The abrupt decision follows an intense constitutional standoff triggered by Speaker Suleman’s unilateral launch of sweeping public service delivery and corruption inquiries.
The pause aligns with a High Court interim order issued on September 4, 2026, which restrained the National Assembly from activating the ad hoc committees pending a full judicial review.
The Executive branch, led by Chief Secretary Justin Saidi, not President Mutharika, heavily criticized the unilateral nature of the probes, stating that the Speaker lacks the constitutional authority to form ad hoc committees without full parliamentary approval.
In a joint statement after their State House discussion, both leaders emphasized a mutual respect for the separation of powers among the Executive, Legislature, and Judiciary.
However, the decision to comply with the court order has ignited fierce national debate regarding the limits of legislative oversight and state accountability.
The political compromise has polarized Malawians, with citizens taking to social media to express deep skepticism over the sudden truce and the legal manoeuvres used to block the investigations.
On the Facebook page of prominent influencer Onjezani Kenani, some commentators viewed the High Court injunction as a direct encroachment on parliament’s mandate.
MacRester Nyamilandu argued, “Respecting the separation of powers means the Judiciary not interfering with the Legislature business in the first place.”
This rejoinder reflects a widely held public sentiment that courts are being weaponized to muzzle the National Assembly’s oversight responsibilities.
Other citizens went further, alleging that the legal challenge against the Speaker was an orchestrated government ploy.
On the same thread, Owen Kay voiced deep frustration in Chichewa: “Palibe chikumveka apa. Mwina nkhani ndi yoti speaker waltesdwa kupanga zokomera a Malawi ndipo munthu anatenga injunction uja anatumidwa ndi boma. A Malawi tikupusitsidwa kwambiri.”
Translated as “Nothing makes sense here. Perhaps the truth is that the Speaker has been stopped from doing what is best for Malawians, and the person who obtained the injunction was sent by the government. We Malawians are being fooled heavily.”
The decision to shelve inquiries into troubled state bodies—including NOCMA, ESCOM, and the passport service sector—has severely damaged public trust.
On the same platform, Gift Moyo levelled direct corruption accusations against the presidency: “Meaning president sakufuna kupanga investigate corruption and he is happy with Court decision. Why safukuna? In short, he tolerates corruption and corrupt people surrounding him. Kwathu kuno politicians care about themselves ndi zipani zawo ndi not a country and its people.”
Meanwhile, on the official Malawi Parliament Facebook page, citizens demanded strategic clarity rather than institutional surrender.
Mweteka Kaluzi raised thought- provoking procedural questions aimed at the legislature’s next moves: “What is next step malawi parliament? Will you engage your lawyer? Will the DPP take the matter for you? Will you challenge the order?”
To resolve this constitutional impasse and restore public trust in state institutions, the following steps are highly recommended.
First, to legally bypass the Executive’s objections, the Speaker should formally table the motion for the 12 joint ad hoc committees before the entire National Assembly.
Passing these inquiries through a full legislative vote aligns perfectly with Section 56(6) of the Constitution, completely neutralizing allegations of unilateral action.
Second, Parliament’s legal counsel must aggressively engage in the inter partes hearing scheduled within the 14- day window of the High Court order.
Collaborating with public- interest bodies like the Malawi Law Society (MLS), which has applied to join the judicial review as amicus curiae, will strengthen the legal framework defending parliamentary oversight.
Third, as Speaker Suleman previously noted, reliance on the Executive for operational funding cripples accountability. Parliament must accelerate legislative reforms within its 2026- 2030 Strategic Plan to secure absolute financial autonomy from State House.
Lastly, the leadership of Parliament should maintain an inclusive approach by distributing committee seats proportionally among the DPP, MCP, UTM, and independent MPs—similar to the framework utilized for the ongoing Chikangawa plane crash inquiry. This prevents anti- corruption probes from being dismissed as partisan or politically motivated warfare.
