Court Rebukes ACB Tactics, Shields Chithyola from Fresh Arrests as Bureau Goes Silent

The silence from the Anti-Corruption Bureau yesterday spoke louder than any press statement.

After suffering a significant courtroom setback in its aggressive pursuit of former Finance Minister Simplex Chithyola Banda, the ACB chose not to publicly explain why it sought another arrest warrant against a man already on bail and fully complying with court conditions.

Instead, it was the court that delivered the clearest message yet: the State cannot weaponise arrests when the law provides less oppressive alternatives.

In a ruling that raises uncomfortable questions about the conduct, motives and procedural fairness of the ACB, the Lilongwe Chief Resident Magistrate’s Court ordered the State not to arrest Chithyola Banda in the new criminal matter linked to the Mega Farms Programme.

Chief Resident Magistrate Austin Banda ruled that any further proceedings against the former minister should commence through summons, not dramatic arrests.

The court further maintained the same bail conditions already governing Chithyola Banda in another ongoing case, effectively acknowledging that the former minister has not been evasive, defiant or uncooperative with authorities.

“The conditions which were attached to the accused person’s release on bail pending trial… shall equally apply to the accused person in this matter,” reads part of the court order.

The ruling is a stinging embarrassment for the ACB, which had obtained a fresh warrant of arrest against Chithyola Banda despite him already being under the jurisdiction of the courts and consistently honouring his bail obligations.

Through his lawyer, George Kadzipatike, the Leader of Opposition challenged the warrant, arguing that the State was abusing its powers by seeking repeated arrests instead of following ordinary legal procedure.

Kadzipatike argued that if authorities genuinely wanted to proceed with another matter, they could simply issue summons since Chithyola Banda was already available to the justice system and had demonstrated compliance.

The court appears to have agreed.

What makes the episode even more damaging for the ACB is its refusal to publicly defend its conduct afterward.

Repeated attempts to obtain comment from ACB spokesperson Jacqueline Ngongonda reportedly went unanswered.

That silence now risks fuelling growing public suspicion that the bureau may have overreached in its handling of the matter.

Critics are already asking difficult questions: Why pursue another arrest against someone already on bail? Why create the impression of a fugitive where none existed? And why remain silent after the court effectively blocked the move?

The ruling does not clear Chithyola Banda of the allegations themselves, which remain before the courts, but it significantly weakens any narrative portraying him as someone attempting to evade justice.

In fact, the court’s decision reinforces the exact opposite — that he has been accessible, compliant and subject to existing judicial oversight all along.

Chithyola Banda is being investigated over allegations linked to the Mega Farms Programme, where he is accused of approving approximately K29.5 billion in extra-budgetary funding benefiting the Greenbelt Authority outside normal government budget procedures.

He is separately facing charges in the controversial East Bridge fertiliser deal involving alleged payments amounting to K25 billion.

But despite the seriousness of the allegations, the court’s intervention now places scrutiny not only on Chithyola Banda, but increasingly on the methods being employed by the ACB itself.

For an institution entrusted with fighting corruption impartially and professionally, the optics of pursuing serial arrest warrants against a cooperating suspect — only to be stopped by the court — may prove deeply damaging to public confidence.

The ruling is also likely to reignite debate about whether Malawi’s anti-corruption fight is being driven strictly by law and evidence, or increasingly influenced by spectacle, pressure and public optics.

For now, the court has drawn a line.

And the ACB has little to say about it.

Follow and Subscribe Nyasa TV :