By Lyson Swala
The announcement that the African Presidency Accountability Council (APAC) has ranked President Arthur Peter Mutharika as Africa’s best-performing president on governance, human rights and political stability has generated considerable public interest.
Such recognition, if credible, would be a significant achievement not only for the President but also for Malawi.
However, before Malawians accept such a ranking as an objective assessment of the country’s progress, there is a more fundamental question that deserves attention:Who exactly is APAC, and why should anyone trust its findings?.
Public confidence in governance rankings is not built simply because an organisation issues a favourable statement.
It is earned through transparency, a clear methodology, institutional credibility and a verifiable track record.
According to the statement released in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, APAC Secretary General Ahmed Sankoh Sherrif described President Mutharika as an African star shining in Malawi and said he had outperformed other African leaders in governance, human rights and political stability.
The statement also claims that Malawians are now able to purchase food at affordable prices and promises that detailed scorecards covering all 54 African Union member states will be released next month.
These are significant claims.Yet there appears to be little publicly available information establishing APAC as a recognised continental governance monitoring institution.
Independent online searches reveal virtually no documented institutional history, official publications, governance reports, research archives or publicly available methodology explaining how such conclusions were reached.
The absence of publicly available information does not automatically mean APAC is not a legitimate organisation.
New institutions emerge every year. However, when an organisation makes sweeping claims that could shape public opinion and influence discussions on governance, it has a responsibility to demonstrate its credibility.
Across the world, respected governance rankings are built on transparency.
Institutions such as the Mo Ibrahim Foundation, Transparency International, Freedom House and the World Justice Project have earned international recognition because they openly publish their methodologies, explain the indicators they measure, identify their researchers and make their data available for scrutiny.
Their reports can be examined, questioned and independently analysed.
Credibility is never established by impressive titles alone.
Any organisation seeking to assess governments should be able to answer basic questions.
When was it established?
Who funds its operations?
Who sits on its governing board?
How were researchers selected?
What indicators were used to measure governance, human rights and political stability?
What sources of the information informed the rankings?
Can independent experts verify or replicate the findings?
Without clear answers to these questions, any ranking,whether favourable or critical,should be approached with caution rather than unquestioning acceptance.
If APAC genuinely conducted a rigorous assessment covering all 54 African Union member states, releasing the complete methodology should be straightforward.
Doing so would strengthen its credibility and reassure the public that its conclusions are based on evidence rather than opinion.
The issues measured by APAC are also among the most sensitive in public policy.
Human rights, governance and political stability are complex subjects that cannot be reduced to broad statements without supporting evidence.
Malawi, like many African countries, continues to experience public debates on economic challenges, governance, accountability and the protection of fundamental rights.
Various national institutions, including the Malawi Human Rights Commission(MHRC), as well as international organisations, regularly monitor these issues using documented standards and transparent reporting methods.
This does not necessarily mean APAC’s conclusions are wrong. Different organisations may use different indicators and arrive at different findings.
However, extraordinary conclusions require equally transparent evidence.
Questioning a ranking should never be interpreted as rejecting it.
Healthy democracies encourage scrutiny regardless of whether the findings praise or criticise those in authority.
If tomorrow another previously unknown organisation were to rank Malawi among the worst-governed countries in Africa without explaining how it reached that conclusion, many people would naturally question its credibility.
The same standard should apply when an unfamiliar organisation produces exceptionally positive assessments.
Consistency is essential.
The media also has a duty to go beyond repeating press statements.
Journalists should investigate the organisation behind the ranking, establish whether it is legally registered, identify its offices and leadership, examine its previous publications and request the full methodology behind its findings.
That is not hostility toward the organisation; it is responsible journalism.
Likewise, those who welcome the ranking should also support calls for transparency.
If the report is based on credible research, making the evidence public will only strengthen confidence in its conclusions.
Ultimately, this discussion is about more than one organisation or one President.It is about protecting the integrity of public information.
Malawians have become increasingly cautious about claims made in the public domain.
Years of conflicting narratives and unverified reports have encouraged citizens to ask questions before accepting extraordinary assertions.
That scepticism should not be dismissed. It is a healthy democratic instinct.
Recognition is meaningful when it is supported by transparent evidence, rigorous research and measurable outcomes that can be independently verified.
If APAC intends to become a respected voice on governance in Africa, it should embrace openness by publishing its institutional history, leadership structure, funding sources, methodology and comprehensive country scorecards.
Until then, it is only reasonable for Malawians to ask questions.
In matters of governance and accountability, credibility is not declared,it is earned.
