As Malawian households grapple with the rising cost of living, questions are emerging over who is financing President Arthur Peter Mutharika’s five private visits to South Africa, which civil society organisations say have kept him abroad for more than 72 days cumulatively.
The organisations are calling on the government to explain whether the trips have involved public expenditure, arguing that citizens deserve transparency on the use of public resources at a time when families and businesses face competing financial pressures.
In a statement, the civil society organisations said the President’s right to privacy and freedom of movement must be respected, but his responsibilities as Head of State and Government make questions about the functioning of his office a legitimate public concern.
“Who is meeting the costs of the five visits, including flights, accommodation, security, transport, diplomatic coordination and any other associated expenditure?” the organisations asked.
The question is central to the concerns raised by the groups, which want the Office of the President and Cabinet and relevant public financial authorities to clarify whether the trips have been financed privately or whether the State has covered some or all of the expenses.
The statement does not establish that public money has been used to finance the visits. Instead, the organisations are demanding an account of any expenditure borne by the State, saying security considerations should not prevent the disclosure of aggregate costs that can reasonably be made public without compromising national security.
Beyond the financial questions, the reported trips have raised concerns about how government business continues during the President’s absence.
The organisations want clarification on how urgent national decisions are handled, who is responsible for exercising executive authority and what arrangements ensure that constitutional responsibilities are fulfilled.
They have also called for greater clarity on the roles of the First Vice-President, the Second Vice-President and Cabinet in maintaining continuity of government, including the proper authorisation of decisions taken during the President’s absence.
The organisations have cautioned against drawing conclusions about the President’s health or declaring a constitutional crisis based solely on his reported travels. They say questions about presidential incapacity must be addressed through the procedures established by the Constitution.
For the groups, the issue is not whether the President is entitled to travel privately, but whether the government is providing sufficient information about the costs and institutional arrangements associated with his absences.
They have urged the government to provide a public explanation of the reported visits, clarify any expenditure incurred by the State and improve communication on matters affecting public accountability.
The organisations argue that timely disclosure would help establish the facts, address public concerns and strengthen confidence in the management of public resources.
They maintain that Malawians are entitled to know how their taxes are used and how the country’s executive responsibilities are being managed, without requiring the disclosure of genuinely private or security-sensitive information.
