‘Homeland Security is supposed to protect, not threaten’: Ntata’s attack on Chisale’s whipping threat

A Malawian government deputy minister has been accused of threatening to unleash violence against opposition supporters — in astonishing remarks that legal experts say expose him as constitutionally unfit for office.

Norman Chisale, who serves as Deputy Minister of Homeland Security with responsibility for Operations, is said to have warned members of the opposition UTM party that “we are about to start whipping people” if they continue “moving from place to place” campaigning.

He reportedly went even further, seeking the blessing of traditional chiefs for the threatened crackdown.

The extraordinary comments have triggered a blistering response from prominent lawyer and former presidential aide Allan Ntata, who says the minister appears to have confused his role as a party operative with his constitutional duties as a government official.

Writing on Facebook, Ntata — who once served as legal aide to the late president Bingu wa Mutharika — said the situation exposed a ‘constitutional irony’ of staggering proportions.

He pointed out that UTM members travelling to campaign are not breaking any laws — they are simply exercising rights enshrined in Malawi’s constitution.

Section 39 guarantees freedom of movement, while Section 40 protects citizens’ right to join political parties and engage in peaceful political activity.

‘The ministry whose security machinery should protect opposition politicians while they exercise those freedoms now has a Deputy Minister publicly talking about whipping them for exercising them,’ Ntata wrote.

The lawyer said the comments raised urgent questions over whether Chisale grasped the difference between his party role and his government office.

He noted the constitution explicitly bars government and political parties from directing police to favour or undermine any party — and requires officers to protect all citizens ‘without fear or favour’.

‘A Homeland Security Minister therefore occupies the very governmental space constitutionally required to stand between political disagreement and political intimidation,’ Ntata said. ‘He cannot simultaneously become its source.’

The lawyer was unsparing in his conclusion, warning that when an ordinary party operative threatens violence it is ‘political thuggery’ — but when the same words come from a minister overseeing homeland security operations, it raises a far graver question over whether the very person meant to safeguard political freedom is instead threatening it.

‘Malawi has travelled this road before,’ Ntata warned. ‘We should recognise the signposts.’

He closed his post with a pointed message to the minister: ‘Hon. Chisale, Homeland Security is supposed to protect political freedom; not threaten to whip it.’

Neither Chisale nor the Ministry of Homeland Security had responded to the claims at the time of publication.