CSOs expose Malawi’s broken political financing system — and demand a fix Parliament fears
A coalition of civil society organisations (CSOs) has delivered a blistering indictment of Malawi’s political financing system, accusing Parliament of presiding over a structure that enables secrecy, illegal funding, and entrenched impunity. Their solution is bold: strip Parliament of its power to disburse public money to political parties and hand it to an independent body.
The Centre for Human Rights and Rehabilitation (CHRR) and Chisankho Watch unveiled the findings in Lilongwe on Wednesday, arguing that Malawi’s political parties have turned the Political Parties Act of 2018 into a suggestion rather than law. The CSOs’ demands follow a high-level meeting involving the Malawi Electoral Commission (MEC), the Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB) and the Office of the Registrar of Political Parties (ORPP).
CHRR executive director Michael Kaiyatsa did not mince words. He said the current system—where Parliament, dominated by the same political parties receiving public funds, controls the purse—is “a built-in conflict of interest that kills accountability.”
His concerns are grounded in troubling data.
Last month, Registrar of Political Parties Kizito Tenthani revealed that most parties refused or failed to disclose their donors. Only United Democratic Front (UDF) and People’s Party (PP) provided partial information.
Far worse, the governing Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) and the former ruling Malawi Congress Party (MCP) were exposed for mixing State funds with private political money, a direct breach of the Act. Yet both parties still pocketed K432 million and K430 million respectively in public funding between 2019 and 2025.
Kaiyatsa warned that Malawi’s current environment sends a clear message to politicians: steal, hide, or overspend—nothing will happen.
“This weak enforcement environment sends a signal that non-compliance has no consequences,” he said. “Political parties can spend even trillions without any accountability because the law has no spending caps.”
But the Office of the Registrar of Political Parties is pushing back.
Tenthani described the CSO report as a “misrepresentation,” calling it a desk study that was concluded “way before elections.” He insisted that both MCP and DPP eventually submitted reports, arguing that the narrative of systematic non-compliance was exaggerated.
He acknowledged, however, the serious issue of mixed funds, blaming it not on intentional wrongdoing but on “capacity challenges” within political parties—and even within the ORPP itself, which is not yet a year old.
But despite his reservations, Tenthani agreed in principle with the heart of the reform:
“In other jurisdictions like Kenya and South Africa, the practice is that funds are channelled through the ORPP,” he said, signalling that the current architecture is outdated and ripe for overhaul.
Governance analyst Willy Kambwandira—executive director of the Centre for Social Accountability and Transparency—was more blunt.
“When Parliament, dominated by the same parties that benefit from public funding, controls disbursement, oversight is compromised by design,” he said.
For him, the issue is not technical—it’s existential. Malawi cannot continue running elections “where money moves in the shadows and accountability is optional.” Shifting funding authority to the ORPP, he said, is about restoring integrity, independence and enforceability in the political financing system.
The CSO report outlines seven priority reforms, including campaign spending limits and a strengthened ORPP with real investigative muscle—not just paperwork and goodwill.
THE PROBLEM:
A political financing system captured by parties, protected by Parliament, and ignored by the powerful.
THE SOLUTION:
Independent oversight, tougher laws, spending caps, and a funding channel that does not depend on the very politicians being monitored.
Malawi stands at a crossroads. The evidence is damning. The warnings are clear. And the question is now unavoidable:
Will Parliament help fix a system from which it benefits—or will it continue shielding a political culture built on secrecy and impunity?