The public inquiry into the acquisition of Amaryllis Hotel by the Public Service Pension Trust Fund (PSPTF) has taken on a life of its own. What started as a financial investigation has transformed into a compelling exploration of the dynamics of power in Malawi’s public finance system. It’s shining a light on the often-hidden interactions between the executive and legislative branches, giving us valuable insights into how decisions are made and who truly holds influence in these processes.
At the heart of the matter isn’t just whether the transaction was wise or questionable. It’s really about accountability, who is responsible, to whom they answer, and under what authority they operate. When key figures like Colleen Zamba, the former Chief Secretary to the President and Cabinet, and Shiraz Yusuf of Yusuf Investments Limited, who has ties to the transaction through private ownership, refuse or hesitate to show up before the Parliamentary Public Accounts Committee (PAC), it raises serious concerns about how well our legislative oversight is really working.
In late April 2026, there were reports about Colleen Zamba, who served as the Secretary to the President and Cabinet, and Shiraz Yusuf, the Chairperson of Yusuf Investment Limited. These were called up to appear before the PAC. Unfortunately, neither of them showed up or engaged fully in the Public Accounts Committee (PAC) hearings. Each had their own reasons for their absence, leaving some questions unanswered about the Amaryllis Hotel acquisition.
Colleen Zamba (Former Secretary to the President and Cabinet)
Colleen Zamba has come under fire for not attending scheduled committee meetings, which many are interpreting as a snub. Her legal counsel has stated that she couldn’t attend due to ongoing judicial matters related to her criminal charges, a situation known as sub judice. Additionally, there have been reports that she was out of the country for medical treatment.
Another concern is Zamba’s lack of communication. Chairpersons from the PAC have indicated that she didn’t formally notify anyone about her absences; she simply didn’t show up, leaving many puzzled and frustrated. As a result, the PAC has found Shiraz Yusuf in contempt of Parliament and is exploring its next steps. Meanwhile, Zamba’s ongoing absence has contributed to a tense standoff between the executive and legislative branches, raising questions about accountability and governance.
Shiraz Yusuf (Yusuf Investment Limited)
Shiraz Yusuf’s appearance before the committee on April 29, 2026, was anything but straightforward. When he arrived, he surprisingly chose not to give his testimony, which effectively meant he didn’t participate in the public inquiry at all.
Yusuf expressed a strong desire for the hearing to be held in private, claiming he was facing serious security threats, harassment, and a barrage of hostile comments on social media. He also mentioned concerns about protecting sensitive commercial information. However, the Public Accounts Committee (PAC) turned down (and rightly so) his request for a closed-door session, insisting that the proceedings be open to the public and televised. This led Yusuf to take a stand, and he chose to withdraw from the hearing altogether. Adding to the context, earlier in April 2026, Yusuf had missed another engagement, explaining that he was unwell and receiving treatment in South Africa. I find Shiraz Yusuf’s requests to be unreasonable and misguided. PAC must treat all respondents fairly, not just Shiraz Yusuf.
1. The Amaryllis transaction: a governance stress test
The acquisition of the Amaryllis Hotel, valued at over K128 billion, is significant because it involves pension funds, money meant to support the livelihoods of civil servants. This shifts the deal from a private transaction to one that raises questions about how public funds are managed and governed.
Given this context, the Public Accounts Committee (PAC) inquiry was essential. It’s a constitutional requirement to hold those in power accountable. However, the process has revealed some underlying issues. Several key figures have been reluctant to appear before the PAC, echoing past incidents in this inquiry in which top officials, including the Attorney General (Frank Mbeta), have either challenged or postponed their appearances, citing procedural matters.
This resistance goes beyond just procedural concerns; it highlights a deeper, systemic issue in Malawi’s governance. It raises important questions about transparency and accountability within the system, as well as the willingness of those in power to engage with oversight processes.
2. Does this undermine PAC?
The Public Accounts Committee (PAC) plays a crucial role in overseeing financial accountability within Malawi’s Parliament. It’s empowered by specific legal authorities, enabling it to scrutinise government expenditures and ensure transparency. This committee is vital in holding government officials accountable and ensuring that public funds are spent wisely and ethically.
- the Constitution
- the Public Finance Management Act
- the Public Audit Act
Its mandate is clear: to scrutinise public expenditure and hold officials accountable. However, in practice, its power is conditional. The power of the PAC doesn’t just come from the laws that govern it; it also relies heavily on the cooperation and respect of both the government and private organisations. Their commitment to following the PAC’s guidance is crucial for effective oversight.
When senior public officials choose not to show up, put off their responsibilities, or question the legitimacy of procedures, it can lead to a range of outcomes. These actions can lead to public disappointment and erode trust in government. They may also delay important decisions, leading to frustration for those waiting for a resolution. Additionally, such behaviour fosters a culture of avoidance and scepticism, making it harder for collaborative efforts to succeed. Ultimately, the actions of these officials significantly impact the effectiveness and credibility of public institutions.
- Institutional weakening: PAC appears unable to enforce compliance
- Precedent-setting: future witnesses may follow similar patterns
- Public perception erosion: oversight appears symbolic rather than effective
This does not mean that PAC lacks power under the law. It means its power is contested in practice.
3. Executive–Legislature relations: Arrogance or structural reality?
The question of whether the executive is being “arrogant” toward the legislature must be approached carefully. From a political economy perspective, what is observed is less about individual arrogance and more about institutional hierarchy and power asymmetry.
The executive branch: controls appointments (e.g., Chief Secretary, Principal Secretaries), influences administrative structures and holds access to information.
The legislature: relies on cooperation to exercise oversight, lacks direct enforcement mechanisms and depends on procedural compliance.
This leads to a bit of an imbalance in the system. When you have a setup like this, it’s pretty common to see pushback against legislative oversight. It’s not always about the executive branch openly challenging Parliament; sometimes it undermines it in quieter ways, like delaying decisions, complicating procedures, or following only certain rules when it suits them.
This dynamic is consistent with broader patterns observed in Malawi’s public finance system, where laws exist but enforcement depends on power relations.
4. The role of Controlling Officers: Silence and alignment
Within the POL–CO–PFM framework, this case also reveals the position of controlling officers. Officials within the public service, whether directly involved in the transaction or in related processes, are legally empowered to: enforce financial controls, ensure due diligence and uphold procurement and audit standards.
Yet, as seen in many cases, including this one, their role is often muted. This reflects a structural tension: COs derive their authority from law but depend on POL for their appointments and career progression. As a result, Legal authority exists, but its application is constrained by political alignment. In some cases, this evolves beyond passive compliance into active collaboration, where public and political actors operate within shared incentive structures.
It is reported that some yielded to the demands to buy the Amaryllis Hotel in exchange for promotion in the Civil Service structure.
5. The role of economic actors: Are private interests capturing the state?
The involvement of private individuals like Shiraz Yusuf adds a new layer to the discussion about economic power. There’s been a lot of talk about whether certain economic players, especially those of Asian descent, are somehow “capturing” the government. It’s important to approach this issue with a clear, analytical mindset rather than relying on sweeping statements. There really isn’t solid evidence to back up broad claims about ethnic or regional groups.
Looking at Malawi, for example, we see that major financial deals often require close collaboration between political leaders and businesspeople. In these scenarios, having access to decision-makers in the government becomes a significant advantage. High-stakes transactions lead to increased influence over policy, which isn’t just a Malawian issue; it’s part of a wider pattern seen in many places, where economic actors manage to steer policies and decisions to their benefit.
Ultimately, the key challenge isn’t about identity; it’s about the strength of our institutions. In areas where institutions are fragile, economic power tends to grow, making it easier for elite groups to establish control and influence decision-making. When oversight is minimal, these networks of influence can become even more powerful.
6. The deeper issue: System design, not individual behaviour.
The Amaryllis inquiry goes beyond just pointing fingers at individuals; it highlights deeper, systemic problems that we need to address. We’re seeing a lack of strong oversight, confusion over who is responsible, and institutions that are not truly independent. Additionally, there are significant pressures for those in power to align with elite interests. This situation reflects a larger truth: public finance systems don’t collapse solely due to missing rules. Instead, they falter because of the way power plays out in relation to those rules.
7. What does this mean for Public Finance Governance?
The implications are significant.
1. Strengthening PAC requires enforcement mechanisms
PAC must move beyond summons power to enforce compliance and impose consequences for non-attendance.
2. Institutional independence must be enhanced
Controlling officers and oversight institutions must operate with greater autonomy and be protected from political pressure.
3. Transparency Must Be Deepened
Public access to contracts, transaction details and decision processes is essential for accountability.
4. State–Business relations must be regulated
Clear frameworks must define how the government engages private investors and how conflicts of interest are managed
Conclusion
The inquiry into the Amaryllis Hotel isn’t just about looking at one specific deal; it reveals so much more about how power functions within Malawi’s public finance landscape. It highlights that, while laws and oversight bodies are in place, the real outcomes often hinge on how individuals wield their power. This situation sheds light on the complexities and challenges of governance in the country, reminding us that effective oversight can sometimes be undermined by other forces at play.
Closing reflection
The decision of important figures to decline to appear before the Public Accounts Committee (PAC) goes beyond a simple oversight; it directly undermines a fundamental principle of accountability. Public resources should be accountable to the people, and how we uphold that principle is crucial. It’s not just about the legal frameworks in place, but also about how effectively the system can enforce these principles. In the end, this situation will truly test Malawi’s governance in managing public finances. Because if we continue on this path, we may not recover as a country. It will be a case of “God for all, man for himself”
Leave a Reply