ANALYSIS | Who Runs This Inquiry? PAC or the Amaryllis Sellers?

Parliament’s Public Accounts Committee (PAC) is in danger of turning a serious national inquiry into a timid, negotiable exercise—and Malawians should not accept that.

Let’s be clear: this is not a private dispute. This is a public matter involving pension funds—people’s lifetime savings—used to purchase Amaryllis Hotel under circumstances that have already raised legitimate questions. When Yusuf Investment Limited (YIL), the seller, walks into a parliamentary inquiry and starts dictating terms—demanding a closed-door session, objecting to media coverage, even asking for “protection”—the issue is no longer just about the deal. It becomes a test of Parliament’s backbone.

And right now, that backbone looks worryingly soft.

PAC had already rejected the request for in camera proceedings. That should have been the end of it. Full stop. Instead, the hearing is stalled because one party is effectively holding the process hostage. That is unacceptable. A parliamentary committee is not a negotiation table where witnesses set conditions—it is an accountability platform where those entrusted with public dealings must answer, openly and without theatrics.

What message does this send? That if you push hard enough, Parliament will bend? That transparency is optional if you are powerful or well-connected?

Malawians deserve better than procedural hesitation and quiet compliance. Pensioners—whose money is at the center of this matter—deserve answers delivered in the open, not behind closed doors where accountability goes to die.

The demand to block media coverage is particularly troubling. Why fear cameras if there is nothing to hide? Public scrutiny is not harassment—it is the very essence of democratic oversight. Trying to shut it out raises more suspicion than it resolves.

PAC must remember its mandate: to protect the public interest, not to accommodate the comfort of those under scrutiny.

This is a moment for firmness, not politeness. The committee should proceed as resolved—publicly, transparently, and without yielding to pressure. If a witness refuses to cooperate under those conditions, there are legal and parliamentary mechanisms to deal with that defiance. Use them.

Because if Parliament cannot stand its ground in a case like this—where the stakes are clear and the public is watching—then it risks becoming a spectator in its own oversight role.

And that would be a far more damaging scandal than the Amaryllis deal itself.

Follow and Subscribe Nyasa TV :