Challenging the Accusations Against Mafuta Mwale: A Perspective on Government Accountability
Recent allegations against Mafuta Mwale, the Governor of the Reserve Bank of Malawi (RBM) and former Secretary to the Treasury, have sparked a heated debate on government accountability. While concerns about financial mismanagement should never be ignored, a deeper analysis of how government funding mechanisms work—particularly as explained by economic expert Hastings Kaira—casts doubt on the accusations.
Kaira, a lecturer at Sussex University in United Kingdom, has consistently emphasized that the Secretary to the Treasury (ST) does not directly authorize payments for projects. Instead, the role of the ST is to consolidate budgets and oversee the release of funds based on requests from ministries, which are responsible for project implementation.
“It is a misconception to think that the Secretary to the Treasury directly funds projects. The Treasury operates based on submissions from controlling officers who certify that work has been completed before requesting funds. The actual implementation of projects lies within ministries and relevant government agencies,” Kaira explains.
This perspective raises several important questions about the accusations against Mwale:
- Who Authorized the Payments?
According to government financial protocols, payments for projects are only made after controlling officers—usually Principal Secretaries (PSs) in ministries—submit completion certificates signed by relevant officials, including engineers from the Buildings Department and project consultants. If fraudulent payments were made, accountability should be traced to those who approved the certificates, not the Treasury. - Did the Treasury Violate Procedure?
Kaira has been clear that the Treasury cannot release funds without proper documentation. If payments were made for incomplete projects, then either:- The completion certificates were falsified at the ministerial level, which implicates project implementers, not the ST.
- The controlling officers failed in their duty to verify work before requesting funds.
- Contractors misrepresented their progress to secure payments.
In either scenario, the Secretary to the Treasury would not be directly culpable, as Treasury officials rely on technical verifications from ministries before processing payments.
- Is This a Politically Motivated Scandal?
The call for a parliamentary inquiry into Mwale’s tenure suggests a potential political motive behind the accusations. If the alleged irregularities occurred under his watch as ST, why were concerns not raised at the time? Why is the scrutiny intensifying only now that he is heading RBM?Kaira warns against politicizing financial governance issues: “Financial management must be assessed based on facts, not political expediency. If irregularities occurred, an independent audit should focus on the process rather than targeting individuals without clear evidence of wrongdoing.”
- Who Else Should Be Investigated?
If fraudulent payments were made, responsibility must extend beyond Mwale. As Kaira points out, government ministries, district commissioners, and procurement officers all play crucial roles in project implementation. Holding one individual accountable while ignoring systemic failures risks distorting the real issues at hand. - The Role of Contractors
Another key issue that Kaira raises is the accountability of contractors. Government contracts follow procurement laws that require competitive bidding and strict oversight. If payments were made for incomplete work, the contractors must also answer for their role in the alleged mismanagement. Were they properly vetted? Were they held accountable for delays? Did they misrepresent their progress?
While financial accountability is crucial, the accusations against Mwale must be examined within the proper framework of government financial procedures. Hastings Kaira’s insights make it clear that the Secretary to the Treasury does not have unilateral authority to fund projects without due process. If financial mismanagement occurred, investigations should focus on the entire system—including ministries, controlling officers, and contractors—rather than singling out one individual.
Accountability must be pursued with facts, not assumptions. Instead of political blame games, Malawi needs transparent audits that follow the money trail and hold the right people responsible.
