Accountability in Malawi has a habit of stopping at the door of the powerful. When ordinary citizens fail to appear before a court or a parliamentary committee, the law moves swiftly.
When senior officials do the same, they are allowed to hide behind excuses, delays, and procedural games. That double standard is eroding public trust and making a mockery of the fight against corruption.
The latest example is the continued refusal of former Secretary to the President and Cabinet Collen Zamba to appear before Parliament’s Public Appointments Committee to answer questions on the controversial sale of Amaryllis Hotel.
Malawi should borrow a leaf from Nigeria and show that no one is above the law by charging, trying, convicting, and sentencing her in absentia.
The precedent is fresh and unambiguous. A Nigerian court has sentenced former Power Minister Saleh Mamman to 75 years in prison for stealing about $21 million in public funds.
Mamman served under former President Muhammadu Buhari and was found guilty of fraud and money laundering in a case brought by Nigeria’s anti-corruption agency, the EFCC.
The court also ordered the seizure of foreign currencies and four properties in Abuja linked to him. Crucially, Mamman was convicted and sentenced in his absence after being declared wanted.
The judge ordered security agencies and Interpol to help arrest him, stating that the sentence will begin once he is taken into custody.
Nigeria has made it clear that absconding will not save you from justice.
Malawi faces the same problem with a different name. Collen Zamba has been summoned multiple times by the Public Appointments Committee of Parliament to explain her role in the sale of Amaryllis Hotel, a prime public asset in Blantyre.
Each time, she has failed to appear, citing flimsy reasons that do not withstand scrutiny. PAC is not a private meeting. It is a constitutional committee with the mandate to scrutinize public appointments and hold public officers to account. When a former SPC, the highest civil servant in the country, refuses to honor its summons, she is not just disrespecting Parliament. She is undermining the entire system of checks and balances that protects public resources.
The facts that make this case urgent are not in dispute. Amaryllis Hotel was sold under circumstances that raised red flags about valuation, transparency, and conflict of interest.
As SPC at the time, Zamba was in the chain of command that approved, facilitated, or failed to stop the transaction. PAC has a right, and a duty, to question her.
The public has a right to know what happened to a state asset that should have benefited Malawians. By refusing to appear, Zamba is denying Parliament and the public the answers they are owed.
Some will argue that PAC cannot compel attendance and that the matter belongs in court. That is a false separation. PAC’s role is oversight, but when oversight is obstructed, the logical next step is criminal investigation and prosecution.
The Anti-Corruption Bureau and the Director of Public Prosecutions have enough material from PAC hearings, audit reports, and media investigations to bring charges. If Zamba continues to evade service and refuse to appear, the state should proceed in absentia, just as Nigeria did.
The law in Malawi allows for this. Section 42 of the Constitution guarantees the right to a fair trial, but that right assumes the accused is willing to participate.
When a person deliberately avoids summons and makes themselves unavailable, they cannot later claim that a trial in absentia was unfair.
The Criminal Procedure and Evidence Code provides for trials to proceed when an accused is absent and has been properly notified. Courts in Malawi have already applied this principle in other cases involving fugitives. There is no legal barrier to doing the same here.
The argument against trials in absentia often rests on principle. But principle without practice is meaningless. If Malawi allows senior officials to ignore PAC and avoid prosecution simply by staying away, then we are telling every future public officer that accountability is optional. That is how institutions rot.
That is how corruption becomes entrenched. The message must be the opposite: if you hold public office, you will answer for your decisions, whether you are in the room or not.
The practical benefits are immediate. First, it restores credibility to Parliament. If PAC summons can be ignored without consequence, then the committee is a toothless talking shop.
Second, it deters other officials from thinking they can loot public assets and flee accountability.
Third, it reassures Malawians and development partners that the country is serious about fighting corruption. No investor wants to put money in a country where public officials can steal and disappear without consequence.
Collen Zamba’s case is particularly important because of her position. As SPC, she was the gatekeeper of the civil service and the custodian of public service integrity.
Her refusal to appear before PAC sends a signal that even the top of the civil service considers itself above scrutiny. That signal is dangerous. It tells junior officers that if the SPC can dodge, so can they. It creates a culture of impunity that spreads downward.
Malawi does not lack laws to deal with this. What it lacks is the will to apply them consistently.
The ACB must finalize its investigations and refer the matter for prosecution. The DPP must not sit on the file.
The courts must be ready to hear the case and, if necessary, proceed in absentia. At the same time, the state should move to seize assets linked to the proceeds of the alleged crime, just as Nigeria did with Mamman’s properties and foreign currencies.
A warrant and an Interpol red notice should follow if she remains out of reach.
This is not about political persecution. It is about equal treatment. A market vendor who fails to appear in court risks arrest and conviction in absentia.
A former SPC should not enjoy a higher threshold of impunity. Public office is a public trust, and breaching that trust must carry consequences regardless of rank.
The Nigerian example shows that justice does not stop at the border and does not wait for the accused to feel ready. Saleh Mamman was tried, convicted, and sentenced to 75 years while absent.
The court ordered asset seizure and activated international arrest mechanisms. Malawi can do the same.
Charge Collen Zamba. Try her. If the evidence supports it, convict and sentence her in absentia. Let the sentence begin the day she is taken into custody.
Malawians are tired of excuses. They are tired of seeing public assets sold under a cloud and watching the key players walk free because they refuse to appear before Parliament. The PAC process has been exhausted. The next step is the courts.
Accountability cannot be selective. If Malawi wants to be taken seriously on corruption, it must show that no office is too high and no excuse is too convenient.
Collen Zamba has had her chance to explain herself before PAC.
She chose not to. Now it is time for the courts to speak.
Try her in absentia, and let justice take its course.
