“Five private trips are more than 72 days abroad: Who is funding Mutharika’s tours?-queries Viphya Rights group

MZUZU-(MaraviPost)-One of the country’s civil rights groups Viphya Human Rights Defenders Network (VHRDN) has questioned President Peter Mutharika’s absence with his private trips arguing that there is a need for accountability and transparency.

The grouping argues that Mutharika’s five private trips are more than 72 days stay in abroad.

In a press statement The Maravi Post has seen signed by VHRDN chairperson Mervin Qumayo queries as who is funding Mutharika’s private trips.

“We express serious concern over reports that President Arthur Peter Mutharika has undertaken five private visits to South Africa, with each subsequent visit reportedly lasting longer than the preceding one. We understand that the latest visit, the President has spent more than 23 days abroad and still counting.

“While we recognise the President’s right to privacy and freedom of movement, we emphasise that the office of President is a public trust governed by the Constitution of the Republic of Malawi. The President’s private life must be respected, but matters affecting the exercise of constitutional authority, continuity of government, expenditure of public resources and the discharge of public duties are legitimate subjects of public interest,” reads the statement in part.

The grouping observes, “Our concern is not to speculate about the President’s personal circumstances, medical condition or private affairs. Rather, it is to seek clear, credible and constitutionally grounded answers about how the Government is functioning during these repeated and extended absences.

“The Government’s apparent failure to provide adequate public explanations has created an information vacuum. In a constitutional democracy, such a vacuum risk undermining public confidence in the Presidency, creating uncertainty about executive accountability and encouraging speculation that could easily be addressed through timely and responsible communication”.

The organisation has raised ten keys issues authorities need to respond to the public including:

1. The President’s Office Is a Public Trust, Not a Private Institution

Section 78 of the Constitution establishes the President as Head of State, Head of Government and Commander-in-Chief of the Defence Force. Section 88 places responsibility on the President to uphold the Constitution and provide executive leadership in the interest of national unity.

These responsibilities do not disappear when the President travels abroad. The Government must continue to function, constitutional duties must be discharged, and decisions affecting the lives of Malawians must remain lawful, accountable and properly authorised.
The public is therefore entitled to ask reasonable questions about the practical arrangements in place to ensure the uninterrupted exercise of executive authority.

Five private visits, cumulatively exceeding 72 days according to the information available to us, warrant a clear explanation of the arrangements governing the President’s official responsibilities during these absences. This is particularly important when the visits are repeated, their duration reportedly increases, and official communication has not adequately addressed public concerns.

The Constitution does not prohibit the President from undertaking private travel. Equally, the right to travel privately cannot be interpreted as removing the public interest in the proper functioning of the highest office in the land.

2. Who Is Paying for These Visits?

One of the most important questions concerns the financial implications of the President’s travel. Who is meeting the costs of the five visits, including flights, accommodation, security, transport, diplomatic coordination and any other associated expenditure?

Are these costs being met entirely from the President’s personal resources, or are public funds being used to finance some or all of the arrangements? If public resources are involved, what is the total expenditure incurred by the State, and under which budgetary provisions are these expenses being charged?

We acknowledge that certain security arrangements and operational details may legitimately require protection. However, security considerations should not become a blanket justification for withholding aggregate expenditure information that can reasonably be disclosed without compromising national security.

The public has a legitimate interest in knowing how public funds are being used, particularly at a time when households, businesses and public institutions face significant economic pressures and competing demands for limited resources.

We therefore call upon the Office of the President and Cabinet and the relevant public financial authorities to provide an appropriate account of the costs borne by the State, while protecting legitimately sensitive operational information.

Transparency in this matter would help establish the facts, dispel unfounded allegations and reinforce confidence in the responsible management of public resources.

3. Who Is Exercising Executive Authority During the President’s Absence?
   The President’s repeated absence also raises important questions about the continuity of executive authority. Section 79 of the Constitution provides for the First Vice-President and, subject to the Constitution, the Second Vice-President to assist the President and exercise powers and functions conferred upon them by the Constitution, an Act of Parliament or the President.

Section 92(3) specifically provides for the presiding of Cabinet meetings during the President’s temporary absence: the First Vice-President presides in the President’s temporary absence, while the Second Vice-President presides where both the President and First Vice-President are temporarily absent.

Furthermore, section 89(6) provides that the President’s powers and functions may be exercised personally or by a Cabinet member or government official to whom the President has delegated such power in writing.

These provisions demonstrate that the Constitution anticipates circumstances in which executive business must continue despite the President’s absence. They also underscore the importance of lawful delegation and clarity concerning the exercise of public authority.

Against this background, we ask:

1. What arrangements have been made to ensure that presidential responsibilities are discharged during each absence?
2. Which constitutional officeholders are responsible for handling urgent executive business and ensuring continuity of government?
3. Where presidential powers have been delegated, what is the scope of the delegation, and has it been properly documented
4. How are urgent national decisions, security matters, economic policy decisions and other essential government functions being handled?
5. What arrangements are in place to ensure coordination and accountability among the President, the First Vice-President, the Second Vice-President and Cabinet?

These are legitimate questions about institutional arrangements, not an attempt to undermine the authority of the Presidency.

4. The Relationship Between the President and the Vice-President

Concerns have also been raised about the relationship between the President and the Vice-President. Where the relationship between senior executive officeholders is perceived to be strained, prolonged uncertainty over executive arrangements can heighten public anxiety.

We do not presume to determine the private relationship between these officeholders, nor do we claim that any disagreement automatically creates a constitutional breach.

However, the constitutional responsibilities of the President and Vice-President must take precedence over personal or political differences.

Malawians must have confidence that disagreements, whether real or perceived, will not interfere with the discharge of constitutional responsibilities or the effective functioning of government.

The Government should therefore clarify the institutional arrangements through which executive decisions are coordinated, communicated and implemented during the President’s absence.

The question is not whether the President and Vice-President must agree on every political matter. It is whether the constitutional system continues to operate predictably, lawfully and in the public interest.

5. Are Decisions Being Made Lawfully and With Proper Authority?

A further concern relates to the legitimacy, authorisation and accountability of decisions made during the President’s absence. Section 90(1) of the Constitution provides that presidential decisions shall be expressed in writing under the President’s signature, while section 90(2) addresses the confirmation of the President’s signature by the Public Seal where law or practice requires it.

Section 89(6), meanwhile, expressly provides for the exercise of presidential powers and functions through written delegation to a Cabinet member or government official.
These provisions make it important to distinguish between the continuation of ordinary government business and the exercise of powers that legally require presidential action, a particular form of authorisation or compliance with specific constitutional procedures.

We therefore call for assurance that decisions taken during the President’s absence are made by the appropriate authorities, in accordance with applicable laws, and supported by the required documentation.

The public should not be left wondering whether important decisions are properly authorised, whether the relevant constitutional procedures have been followed, or who is accountable for their implementation. We are not alleging that any decision has been unlawfully made. We are insisting that the Government provide sufficient information to demonstrate that constitutional and legal safeguards remain effective.

6. Does the Situation Raise Questions About Presidential Capacity?
   The duration and frequency of the reported visits have prompted some citizens to question whether the President is able to discharge the responsibilities of his office fully and consistently.

Such questions must be handled with particular care. No responsible institution should infer medical incapacity merely from travel, the length of an absence or speculation about a person’s private circumstances. Nor should any public statement presume that the President is incapacitated without the constitutionally required process.

Section 87 of the Constitution establishes a specific procedure for determining presidential incapacity. It requires a written declaration, certified by a board of independent medical practitioners, signed by the First Vice-President and a majority of Cabinet, and submitted to the Speaker of the National Assembly. Upon submission, the First Vice-President assumes the powers and duties of Acting President in accordance with that section.

Consequently, the existence of repeated private visits does not, by itself, establish constitutional incapacity or automatically transfer presidential powers to another officeholder.

Nevertheless, the Government should understand why the public seeks reassurance about the President’s availability and the effective discharge of his responsibilities. Such reassurance can be provided without disclosing private medical information.

We therefore call for a clear public explanation of the arrangements ensuring that the President remains able to discharge his constitutional duties and that government business continues lawfully and effectively. If a genuine question of incapacity arises, it must be addressed through the constitutional procedure, not through political speculation, public pressure or informal declarations.

7. Are We Heading Towards a Constitutional Crisis?

We caution against prematurely declaring that Malawi is already experiencing a constitutional crisis. The Constitution contains provisions governing executive authority, delegation, Cabinet business and presidential incapacity.

However, a constitutional system can be placed under strain when the public cannot establish who is exercising particular powers, how decisions are being authorised, whether constitutional procedures are being followed or how accountability is maintained.

The risks associated with continued uncertainty including:

1. Institutional uncertainty: Lack of clarity about executive arrangements can create confusion within government institutions and weaken confidence in the coordination of public affairs.
2. Accountability gaps: Where responsibilities are not clearly communicated, it becomes more difficult for citizens and oversight institutions to determine who is answerable for particular decisions.
3. Public mistrust: Inadequate communication can fuel rumours, deepen political divisions and undermine confidence in government announcements and decisions.
4. Administrative disruption: Uncertainty surrounding executive availability and decision-making arrangements may affect the timely handling of urgent national matters, particularly where decisions require specific presidential authority.
5. Fiscal concerns: Without appropriate disclosure, citizens cannot readily establish whether the costs associated with the visits are being met privately or through public resources.
6. Constitutional disputes: If questions arise about the authority under which particular decisions were made, disagreements may eventually require formal legal or constitutional clarification.

These are risks that warrant attention and preventive action. They are not findings that any constitutional violation has occurred. Our position is that transparency and institutional clarity are essential safeguards against an avoidable constitutional dispute.

8. Why Citizens Are Entitled to Ask Questions

The President occupies an office whose authority derives from the Constitution and whose responsibilities extend to every Malawian, regardless of political affiliation.

Citizens finance public institutions through taxes and other public revenues. They are entitled to expect that public resources are managed responsibly, public authority is exercised lawfully and government institutions remain accountable.

Section 37 of the Constitution recognises a right of access to information held by the State, subject to applicable law. The Access to Information Act, 2016, also provides a framework for access to information held by public bodies and promotes disclosure in accordance with constitutional principles of transparency, accountability and public trust.

These principles do not mean that every private detail of the President’s life must be disclosed. Nor do they remove legitimate protections for national security, personal privacy or confidential information.

They do mean, however, that the Government should distinguish between information that is genuinely private or security-sensitive and information necessary for citizens to understand the management of public affairs.

Questioning the use of public funds, the continuity of government and the lawful exercise of constitutional authority is not disloyalty. It is a legitimate expression of democratic citizenship. In a constitutional democracy, no public office should be beyond reasonable scrutiny. Equally, public scrutiny must remain evidence-based, respectful of the law and free from unsupported allegations.

9. Our Demands to the Government

In view of the concerns outlined above, we call upon the Government, through the Office of the President and Cabinet and other relevant authorities, to:
 Provide a public explanation of the institutional arrangements governing the President’s official responsibilities during the five reported visits to South Africa.
 Clarify the financing of the visits, including the aggregate expenditure borne by the State, where applicable, and the relevant budgetary arrangements, subject to legitimate security and privacy protections.

1. Explain the continuity-of-government arrangements, including how urgent executive business is handled and how constitutional powers are exercised during the President’s absence.
2. Clarify applicable delegation arrangements, including whether and how presidential powers have been delegated in writing where necessary, without disclosing protected operational details.
3. Reassure the public about lawful decision-making, confirming that presidential decisions and other executive actions are being taken and documented in accordance with the Constitution and applicable laws.
4. Address the issue of presidential availability responsibly, without disclosing private medical information or making unsupported assertions about the President’s health or capacity.
5. Improve public communication by providing timely, accurate and consistent information on matters of legitimate national concern, so that avoidable speculation does not undermine confidence in public institutions.
6. Ensure appropriate oversight, including the role of Parliament and other legally mandated accountability institutions, where questions about public expenditure, executive authority or constitutional compliance require further examination.
   We urge the Government to treat these requests as an opportunity to strengthen public confidence rather than as an attack on the Presidency.
7. Our Position: Transparency, Not Speculation
   Malawi’s constitutional democracy must be protected through respect for the Constitution, the rule of law, institutional accountability and responsible leadership.

The President has a right to privacy. The people of Malawi equally have a legitimate interest in knowing that the highest office in the land is functioning effectively, that public money is being managed properly and that decisions affecting the nation are made under lawful authority.

The five reported private visits and the cumulative period of absence warrant a substantive response, not silence or dismissive political rhetoric. We are not asking the Government to disclose every detail of the President’s private life. We are asking it to answer questions that concern the exercise of public power and the continuity of the State.

The grouping therefore concludes, “We are not declaring that Malawi is in a constitutional crisis. We are warning that prolonged uncertainty, if left unaddressed, can undermine confidence in the constitutional order and create avoidable institutional and political risks”.

The organisation appeals, “The Government has an opportunity to resolve these concerns through transparency, responsible communication and demonstrable adherence to the law. Malawians deserve answers.

“The Constitution demands accountability. Public trust requires transparency”.