Front PageGuest Spot

‘Malawians cannot always be taken for a ride’

Parliament rose last week after passing the Budget and recommending to government that it should not sell MSB Bank. However, immediately after the budget was passed, government still sold the bank. Our reporter BONIFACE PHIRI caught up with Leader of Opposition in Parliament LAZARUS CHAKWERA to discuss these issues.

What’s your impression about the just ended budget sitting; were you convinced by the way government handled business in the House?

Lazaurus Chakwera
Lazaurus Chakwera

I believe the people of Malawi have every reason to be proud of the good work that honorable members of Parliament did in the just ended sitting. Our debate was constructive and substantive, our resolutions were focused on national rather than party interests. And our general conduct was a display of a genuine desire to serve Malawians we represent.

As for the specific question as to whether I was convinced by the way government handled business in the House, I would have to say that there were too many times I was saddened. I was saddened, for example, by their non-participation in the plenary debate on the budget and/or bills. Being on the government side should not necessarily entail shunning rigorous and robust debate.

Were you satisfied with the way government sold MSB bank, especially considering that the transaction was done after the House had asked government not to proceed with the sale?

No. One of the reasons that saddened me was how the MSB saga unfolded. It had been my hope that the President would not only listen to the peoples’ representatives on the issue, but would also incorporate their views in his decision. But it was evident that my hopes were ill-placed. What happened is a reflection of our nation’s vicious cycle of unaccountable leaders who only pay lip-service to servant leadership.

It was clear from the report of the Budget and Finance Committee of Parliament that Parliament was not against the sale of MSB, but questioned the manner, motive and methodology of the said sale. Several recommendations were made in order that issues of transparency and accountability would be really addressed. While the peoples’ representatives understood the reasons given for the transaction, we were surprised at the President’s tokenism, first in feigning suspension of the sale while at the same time technocrats were finalising the same immediately Parliament passed the budget.

This seriously puts into question issues of governance in this nation because it is public knowledge that the bank was deliberately run down by party functionaries so that in the end it would be sold for a song.  So while it may seem legit that government should not be running such businesses as a bank, why is the same government talking about establishing a development bank? This government needs to know that there is no place to hide, it has an expiry date, and Malawians cannot always be taken for a ride.

Another contentious issue was that of the K577 billion forensic audit report. Some opposition members claim government brought into the House a dummy. Do you share those views. Was the pr

It is not a forensic audit report.  It was a data analysis of the K92 billion ($204.4 million) audit query which then showed that there is K577 billion ($1.3 million) necessitating forensic audit. When that audit report comes out, Parliament will debate and take necessary action. So, the presentation of an audit data analysis as an audit report is a misrepresentation. If anything, that data analysis report only confirms that this government cannot be trusted.

Government says the opposition just wanted to oppose anything and lacked substance. Do you agree? Is this the kind of opposition we are likely to see in the next four years?

If you believe government’s assertion, then you disagree with those Malawians who say that our critique of the budget as well as contributions on the same had a lot of substance. Eventually, Malawians will be the best judges.

Can we do better? Certainly. But did we oppose for the sake of opposing? Certainly Not.

It is a sign of a government that does not want to take on board opposition views because we definitely offered alternative viewpoints. Anyone with a genuine interest can check the Hansards to see that I am not just making empty claims.

How would you advise government to spend the just approved budget?

When we are speaking in Parliament or outside Parliament, the Opposition is always offering advice. Whether government heeds the advice or not is their responsibility and Malawians can judge for themselves. Malawians have a right to question why people are not being paid on time, why services are not there when budget has been passed. Malawians have a right to question government particularly when the perception that seems like development priorities are not in line with the constitutional provision that every Malawian is entitled to irrespective of region, tribe or party affiliation.

We will continue to monitor how strictly they adhere to the law in terms of financial management and procurements, let alone provision of services.

Reforms must not just be talked about. They must be fully followed or we will all be disappointed with the fact that instead of experiencing the transformation we are looking for, we will continue to be deformed as a nation.

Related Articles

Back to top button