ANALYSIS | One Trip, Many Lies: Govt Caught Pants Down in Jane Ansah’s UK Travel Cover-Up
The contradictory statements surrounding Vice President Jane Ansah’s recent trip to the United Kingdom reveal more than simple confusion. They expose a government struggling to maintain a coherent narrative after being overtaken by leaked evidence. What Malawians are witnessing is not poor communication, but a clumsy attempt to manage a scandal that spiralled out of control.
The controversy began when leaked official documents surfaced, indicating that what had been described as a “private trip” by the Vice President would cost the public purse close to K1.9 billion. These documents detailed extensive state-funded expenses, including travel, accommodation, security, and allowances. When questioned, the Vice President’s spokesperson, Richard Mveriwa, did not dispute their authenticity. His careful response—“those are the documents”—amounted to a tacit confirmation that the papers were genuine.
At this stage, the government was still maintaining that the trip was private. That position quickly became untenable. Days later, Mveriwa issued another statement distancing the office from the K1.9 billion figure while quietly changing the character of the trip. The visit was no longer private; it was now described as an “official visit.” No explanation was offered for the sudden shift, nor was the public told why official documents existed for what was initially portrayed as a personal journey.
The revised narrative was reinforced by Minister of Information and government spokesperson Shadreck Namalomba. He confirmed that the Vice President was travelling on an official mission to the UK, but insisted the cost would be K168 million, not billions. By then, the public had been presented with two irreconcilable versions of the same trip: one supported by leaked documentation and another crafted for public reassurance.
Even so, there appeared to be temporary alignment between the Vice President’s office and the Information Ministry. That alignment collapsed when President Peter Mutharika intervened. In a statement that contradicted everything previously communicated, the President informed Malawians that the Vice President’s trip was private and that she personally paid for all the costs. With that declaration, the official-visit narrative was abruptly abandoned.
The President’s statement raises unavoidable questions. If the trip was private and self-funded, why were there official government budget documents detailing public expenditure? Why did the Vice President’s office initially acknowledge those documents? Why did government spokespersons defend a K168 million cost to the taxpayer? And why was the trip ever classified as official in the first place?
The most credible explanation is that the trip was originally planned and budgeted as an official, state-funded visit. The premature leak of cost documents—particularly the explosive K1.9 billion figure—triggered public outrage before the government could control the messaging. What followed was reactive damage control: confirmation, partial denial, cost minimisation, and finally a complete reversal of the story.
The President’s intervention appears to have been an emergency effort to extinguish the fire, not a clarification of facts. Declaring the trip private and self-funded after multiple official statements and documents suggests a political decision taken to contain fallout rather than to uphold transparency.
This episode exposes a troubling reality. Different arms of government were operating from different versions of the truth—some constrained by documented facts, others driven by political survival. The result was a sequence of contradictions that eroded public trust and deepened suspicion.
Ultimately, Malawians are not confused because the issue is complex. They are confused because the government changed its story too many times. Until full documentation is released and a single, verifiable account is provided detailing who authorised the trip, who budgeted for it, and who paid for what, the conclusion remains inescapable: this was not a misunderstanding, but a cover-up unravelled by its own inconsistencies.
Follow and Subscribe Nyasa TV :