We, the undersigned civil society organisations (CSOs), have noted with open-mindedness and intrigue some lines of thinking and arguments being advanced by some quarters in support of NAC gesture in releasing funds to Beatify Malawi Trust (Beam) and Mlhakho wa Alhomwe. The Malawi Interfaith and Aids Alliance (MIAA), National Aids Commission (NAC), Maxwell Matewere (Vice Chairperson of CONGOMA and board member of First Lady Gertrude Mutharika’s BEAM Trust), Mavuto Bamusi (President Peter Mutharika’s Advisor on NGOs and board member of First Lady’s BEAM Trust) and others have been in the limelight justifying “NAGGATE” citing NAC funding is for everyone, and hence there was nothing wrong in the implicated institutions in accessing it as part of HIV AIDS mainstreaming drive. Some have even taken a step further, like Bamusi, by alleging that CSOs are jealousy of BEAM trust and that are politically motivated.
According to Mutharika’s aide, CSOs who are demanding justice and the truth on the matter should proceed with their planned demonstrations. National Aids Commission (NAC) in their response to the public outcry on the matter indicated that anti-NACGATE CSOs have lack of knowledge on how NAC’s funding modalities operate, and that they did not sub grant any money to either BEAM Trust or Mulhakho Wa Lhomwe but rather participated in these activities as part of a “high level advocacy” on HIV and AIDS. Just recently, Maxwell Matewere, who ironically is the board member of BEAM Trust, speaking in the mouth of a vice-chairperson of Council for Non-Governmental in Malawi (CONGOMA), reasoned in one of the local media outlets that the CSOs’ plan to hold demonstrations on 13th January next year is a rushed one, arguing the consultative process with the public and other stakeholders was not exhaustive enough. In addition, we have also heard an argument doing the rounds that NAC has been doing the same thing for many years, hence no need to raise eye-brows this time around.
In a pluralistic country like Malawi, such diverse viewpoints on matters of national concern are welcome and should be promoted to the letter as democracy can only flourish in an environment of diversity. Litter wonder, we the CSOs, found it extremely tempting not to respond to some pro-NAC or anti- January 13 2015 protests arguments, lest we are perceived to be suffocating the very virtues of freedom of expression and tolerance of opposing view-points as expected of any democracy.
However, we find responding to misleading information and arguments presented by the “proponents” of NACGATE may not necessarily do any harm to virtues of freedom of expression but instead provide access to right information, at least for the public in a context characterized by government’s tailored-propaganda on state and DPP’s controlled private media to divert the public attention from real issues surrounding NACGATE, and portraying the CSOs who are speaking for the voiceless as devil incarnates who do not care a hoot about the plight of Malawians when in real sense the vice versa may be true. No wonder, our response bellow.
We, the undersigned CSOs, would therefore like to set the record straight on these arguments.
In the first place, we find the argument by MIAA’s Robert Ngaiyaye a sweeping one. We would like to believe that Ngaiyaye deliberately chose to advance this sweeping argument for the reasons we don’t know. It has to be made clear here that much as NAC funding is for the public, this does not render the body easily manipulated by government forces, as has been the case with BEAM and Mhlako wa Alomwe. Primarily, NAC funding is for national HIV and Aids response and within the national response, there are strategic organizations, (not the two in question) that play a critical role in the national response whose financial allocation has been decreasing recently; constraining realization of evidence based targeted impact. We the CSOs, thus, found it imperative to question NAC moral justification to swiftly release funds to the said institutions. For sure BEAM and Mlhakho wa Alhomwe can never be said to be strategic stakeholders in the HIV and Aids response.
Secondly, we would like to remind NAC on the importance of adherence to set procedures. We, the CSOs, still doubt whether government and its agents followed set procedures for accessing the mentioned funds. Our insistence is still remains that government and its agents used their power to influence the National AIDS Commission to release the money while holding its dagger. This violates accountability and transparency under which AIDS resources should be disbursed. We even wonder if the Board had played any role in the release of these funds. Thus, our take still remains that Political influence found its way in the manner NAC released funding to these institutions.
As previous presented in our statement, we still view and maintain that National Aids Commission (NAC) recent clarification on this abuse of funds is a big joke. In its attempt to shield BEAMT trust and Muhlakho wa Ahlomwe from the scandal, the NAC’s executive director signed statement did not only yield contradictions with BEAMT responses but also raised serious questions on the integrity of the institution which is mandated to provided overall leadership and coordination of the national response to HIV and AIDS. NAC denies having granted any money to Beautify Malawi but rather participated in the Beautify Malawi launch activities through buying dinner tables for stakeholders and advertising during the launch. Ironically, the First Lady Madame Getrude Mutharika’s consents having received the K5, 000, 000 million grant for her BEAM Trust but defends herself of not using any political influence to get the money.
What a contradiction! At the same time granted NAC’s defence that it voluntarily participated in BEAMT is anything to go by then the question of procedures and whether such resources were directed to the intended purpose still arise. More insulting is NAC’s defence of release of funds for Mulhakho Wa Lowmwe function as part of its “high level advocacy initiatives”. How does NAC define “high level advocacy initiatives” for HIV and AIDS? Did we really see any “high level advocacy initiatives”, or even “low level advocacy initiatives, on HIV and AIDS in both functions? If NAC defines “high level advocacy initiatives on HIV and AIDS” as such, then we should all be afraid of entrusting a body whose minimum targets and standards for measuring HIV and AIDS advocacy and impact initiatives are far beyond the public and global expectations. Which budget line did NAC use for these initiatives? NAC statement did not manage to address any of our concerns, if truth be told.
Turning to Maxwell Matewere’s arguments, we, the CSOs are not sure if Matewere was speaking in his capacity as CONGOMA vice chairperson or a board member of BEAM, the beneficiary of NAC-gate in question. Otherwise, we take it that CONGOMA is a membership body and we wonder if Matewere’s arguments are as a result of consultative process with CONGOMA members. Nevertheless, we question his reasoning that the nationwide demonstrations plan is a rushed one. For someone to assert that our decision to have a nationwide demonstrations as being rush considering the background of a 7-days ultimatum which was given to all the implicated parties involved to respond and refund the money is totally misplaced, and only indicates lack of objectivity on such a person. Instead of receiving the expected responses, and refund of the abused NAC money, what we got was sheer ‘executive arrogance’ not only from NAC but also the institutions in question in particular BEAM trust who through Presidential Advisor on NGOs Mavuto Bamusi indicated they cannot refund the money, and the CSOs should go ahead with the planned demonstrations. After all, there is still space for the concerned organisations to refund the money before January 13th 2014.The January 13/2014 can never be a rushed idea when our calls for the three institutions to refund NAC money have hit a snag. Our expectation and understanding is that Mr Matewere and Ngaiyaye, being seasoned civil society leaders, appreciate the principles of accountability and transparency in as far as management of donor funding is concerned, and if what they have portrayed so far on this issue is anything to go by then we should all be very worried.
The very fact that President Mutharika’s wife Getrude – who happens to be the matron of the BEAMT)- and his advisor on Non-governmental Organisations Mavuto Bamusi – who is supposed to advise the President on the negative implications of using HIV and AIDS funds for unrelated activities like ‘buying dinner tables’ – are engrossed in ‘executive arrogance’ by seeing no ‘evil’ in using HIV and AIDS funds for other unrelated activities should be a source of concern not only to the general public but also to the government and the President in particular especially considering the fact that the two are very close to the President, and often speak the President’s mind.
How can someone in his capacity as Presidential Advisor and board member of BEAMT say the CSOs who are demanding accountability, transparency and truth on NACGATE are jealousy of the First Lady’s BEAMT and informed by partisan interests? If being jealousy of the first lady’s BEAMT is gauged by exposing abuse of the trust’s abuse of funds, then that description ably befits us. Informed by this “jealousy”, we the CSOs will not relent in our efforts in demanding that BEAMT, amongst other undeserving beneficiaries, pays back the money meant for HIV AIDS purposes. Lest be assured we should do this without fear and favour.
We are still disturbed that till-to date President Mutharika and his government [through Ministry of Health) continue to be “silent” on this important matter which is doing more harm than good to his government’s image locally and internationally. Why is the President “quiet”? Does it mean that “NACGATE” saga is of no ultimate concern to his government’s professed efforts towards reduction of HIV and AIDS in the country? Why is the President not condemning the act, and calling for swift independent investigations in the matter? For no doubt the President’s “silence” on the matter is making a lot of noise, and to a greater extent his silence may be implied as consent to the malpractice. Yes, such conclusion seems to be well backed up when you see the deep commitment and vigilance Peter Mutharika’s regime has attached to media-related propaganda on both state and its privately controlled media establishments against human rights defenders who have decided to expose NACGATE, and in the process arousing more questions than answers.
Why is it that the DPP’s regime seemed to be more concerned or “angry” with the saga than even the implicated BEAM Trust and Mulhakho Wa Alhomwe? Why the panic? Is there something the DPP’ regime is hiding to the country on its possible role in NACGATE? If the whole of the President can stand up and say “I don’t want mawa somebody nkumati fwee fwee fwee ndipanga demonstrations and so forth there is no government money here involved”, in front of children, for any possible intentions by his “critics” to poke their nose into the source of funds for the children’s party in a context or a background of NACGATE and that the only demonstrations being talked about which are as a result of misuse of public funds are the ones related to NACGATE, then we should all be suspicious and question why the President is uttering such and his possible link to NACGATE saga? Why the guilt and anger?
It is in light of the foregoing that the CSOs under the anti Nac-gate banner have stuck to our plans to stage nationwide protests on 13the January, 2014. The CSOs are more determined than ever to offer the public the platform to exercise their freedom of assembly and expression in demanding the two institutions in question to refund the NAC money, and also call for the current regime address the prevailing economic and political woes which are inhibiting Malawians from fully enjoying their human rights
Safari Mbewe
Executive Director (MANET+)
Martha Kwataine
Executive Director (Malawi Health Equity Network-MHEN)
MacDonald Sembereka
Executive Director (MANERELA+)
Gift Trapence
Executive Director (Centre for Development of People -CEDEP)
Timothy Mtambo
Executive Director (Centre for Human Rights and Rehabilitation-CHRR)
