Malawi is a democratic country. We debate in the market, on radio, on WhatsApp, in parliament, and on the streets.
That freedom of speech is real, and Malawians are enjoying it more than ever. No one is gagged for having an opinion.
But the hard truth is that freedom without responsibility is not freedom. It is license. And license, when spoken by public figures, can burn a nation.
That is exactly what happened when Silvester Namiwa, Director of the Centre for Democracy and Economic Development Initiatives — CDED — stood before cameras and declared that Malawi “will have Dr. Jane Ansah as President in the next two months.”
Let us be clear on the context. Malawi already has a President. Professor Arthur Peter Mutharika was democratically elected, sworn in, and is executing the mandate given to him by Malawians through the ballot.
The constitution is explicit: one president at a time, and succession is not decided on Facebook live or at a press briefing. It is decided by law, by votes, and by constitutional process.
For Namiwa to suggest an unconstitutional transfer of power within a specific timeline is not “free speech.” It is incitement.
It is a statement designed to create anxiety, to test institutions, and to plant the idea that the will of the people expressed at the ballot can be overturned by press statement.
In any democracy that respects itself — from the United States to South Africa to Botswana — such remarks trigger investigation.
The police were therefore within their mandate to arrest Mr. Namiwa for questioning. Questioning is not conviction.
It is due process. It is the law asking: “On what basis did you make this claim? Who told you this? What do you know that Malawians do not?”
To criminalize the act of asking questions would be to tell citizens that some people are above the law because they have a title and a microphone. That cannot be.
And here is where the story gets uglier.
Instead of allowing the police to do their work, a group of politicians rushed to the police station.
Dalitso Kabambe of UTM. Atupele Muluzi of UDF. Kondwani Nankhumwa. They did not go to ask for facts. They went to demand release. Before the file was opened. Before a statement was recorded.
The hard truth is that these are failed politicians who have lost elections and now want to stay relevant by standing next to any controversy.
They see in Namiwa’s reckless statement an opportunity to rebrand themselves as “defenders of democracy.” But what democracy are they defending? The democracy of making up presidential timelines?
The democracy of intimidating investigators?
Why are they condoning Namiwa’s remarks? Why are they politicizing a careless narrative that has no basis in law or fact? Because it suits them.
When you have no policy to sell, you sell chaos. When you have no crowd, you borrow one from a press conference. When you cannot win at the ballot, you try to win in the headlines.
It did not stop there. Leader of Opposition in Parliament, Dr. Chithyola Banda, went further and asked Parliament to halt government business until Namiwa is released.
Seriously? Parliament, the house of the people, should stop debating the budget, health, and roads because one citizen is being questioned by police?
The irony would be laughable if it were not dangerous. This is the same MCP that, not long ago, wanted to kill Namiwa. Today he is a hero. Tomorrow he will be a villain again, depending on who needs a soundbite. That is not principle. That is opportunism.
Malawi deserves better. We deserve an opposition that knows its role: to scrutinize policy, to propose alternatives, to hold government accountable with facts, not with rumors.
What we have instead is a sick opposition that is ignorant of the limits of freedom of expression. Freedom of expression does not include the freedom to announce a new president.
It does not include the freedom to destabilize. It does not include the freedom to test whether our security forces will blink first.
Let’s state the law plainly for international readers who love Malawi for its peace: Section 40 of our Constitution guarantees freedom of expression.
But Section 41 also demands respect for the rights of others and for public order. The Penal Code criminalizes sedition and statements likely to cause fear or alarm.
The police acted within that framework. No one was beaten. No one was silenced forever. A statement was taken. That is how democracies work.
If we allow Namiwa’s statement to go unquestioned, we open the door for anyone tomorrow to declare “in 30 days we will have a new army chief” or “in 60 days this court will be dissolved.” The country will become a rumor. Investors will run. Donors will pause. And ordinary Malawians who just want maize, medicine, and jobs will pay the price.
So let the police do their work without external interference. Let the courts interpret. Let politicians go back to constituencies and explain why hospitals have no drugs instead of camping at police stations.
The hard truth is that Malawi’s democracy is mature enough to survive criticism, but not mature enough to survive lies dressed as prophecy. Namiwa must answer for his words.
The opposition must answer for why they rushed to shield him. And all of us must answer for whether we want a country governed by the constitution, or by press statements.
Malawi has one President. His name is Arthur Peter Mutharika. He was elected. He is serving. And until the ballot or the constitution says otherwise, that is the hard truth.
Anyone who says otherwise should be ready to explain it — to the police, to the courts, and to the people.
Feedback:+265992082424
Email: jonesgadama@gmail.com
Leave a Reply