By Ephraim Mkali Banda
The decision by Frank Mbeta, Malawi’s Attorney General, to decline appearing before the Public Accounts Committee (PAC), despite being scheduled to do so, raises serious concerns about accountability, transparency, and respect for parliamentary oversight.
At a time when public trust in government institutions is under increasing scrutiny, senior public officials must demonstrate a willingness to answer legitimate questions from institutions mandated to protect the public interest.
The request to reschedule the appearance, accompanied by arguments about procedural concerns, may be legally framed, but it risks being interpreted by the public as an attempt to evade scrutiny.
The PAC plays a critical role in Malawi’s governance architecture. As a parliamentary body tasked with examining how public funds are managed, it serves as one of the most important accountability mechanisms within the democratic system.
When such a committee summons a public official especially one occupying the high office of Attorney General it is not merely a routine administrative exercise. It is a fundamental part of ensuring that government actions remain transparent and answerable to the people through their elected representatives.
For this reason, the expectation that the Attorney General should appear before the committee is not unreasonable. In fact, it is consistent with the spirit of democratic accountability.
While Mbeta argues that his office does not need to be summoned at all and insists on strict adherence to procedure, the broader question is whether procedural technicalities should take precedence over the urgent need for transparency.
Public officials must always remember that their offices exist to serve the nation. The Attorney General’s office is particularly important because it stands at the intersection of law and governance.
It provides legal guidance to government institutions and is expected to uphold the principles of justice, legality, and constitutionalism. As such, the holder of that office must be seen to lead by example when it comes to accountability.
If there are indeed procedural issues surrounding the summons, those concerns can still be addressed without completely avoiding the scheduled appearance.
Appearing before the committee and raising those concerns within the parliamentary forum would demonstrate respect for the institution while still defending the integrity of the office.
Malawians are increasingly demanding transparency from those entrusted with public power. Episodes in which senior officials appear reluctant to face parliamentary scrutiny only deepen public skepticism about the functioning of state institutions.
This is why Mbeta should reconsider the position. Appearing before the committee would not diminish the dignity of the office. On the contrary, it would reinforce the principle that no public office is above accountability.
Parliamentary committees such as the PAC are not adversaries of government officials; they are instruments of democratic governance. Their effectiveness depends largely on the cooperation of those they seek to question. When cooperation is withheld, the entire system of accountability begins to weaken.
Ultimately, the issue is larger than one meeting or one official. It is about protecting the culture of accountability within Malawi’s public institutions.
If leaders begin to treat parliamentary oversight as optional, the country risks undermining the very mechanisms designed to safeguard public resources and democratic integrity.
For the sake of transparency, public confidence, and respect for parliamentary authority, the Attorney General should appear before the Public Accounts Committee without further delay.
Doing so would send a powerful message that accountability remains a cornerstone of Malawi’s democratic governance.
