LILONGWE-(MaraviPost)-A dispute over the selection of agencies to manage Malawi’s next Global Fund grants has deepened after six members of the Country Coordinating Mechanism (CCM) formally objected to a proposal to seek votes, comments or endorsements from members who were absent from an August 18, 2026 decisional meeting.
The six CCM members — Dunker Kamba (Key Population Constituency), Bishop Moffat Litchapa[Vice Chairperson], Treza Mphwatiwa (Business Constituency), Memory Kamwendo (Key Population Constituency), Tionge Gondwe (Women Constituency) and Ishmael Phiri (HIV Constituency) — jointly signed a formal objection addressed to CCM Chairperson Dr. Cliff Chiunda and copied to the CCM Secretariat.
The members argue that the August 18 meeting was properly convened and had attained the required quorum, meaning decisions reached by members present and voting should not subsequently be reopened through correspondence with members who were absent.
Mphwatiwa confirmed that the objection was jointly prepared by the six members and sent by email to the CCM chairperson and secretariat.
She said the email was also copied to CCM members and their alternates, as well as ex-officio members who attended CCM meetings.
“We wrote the CCM chairperson and the secretariat,” Mphwatiwa said. “We also copied all the CCM members and their alternates, plus all the ex-official members who actually attended the CCM meetings.”
Mphwatiwa said the group had received no response from the chairperson or any other recipient.
“No response, no response from anyone,” she said.
The dispute centers on Item 8 of the August 18 meeting, which dealt with the report of the Civil Society Organization Principal Recipient Selection Committee.
According to the six members, the meeting deliberated on several agenda items, including funding priorities, the Programme Split Recommendation and the Principal Recipient selection.
They argue that the Principal Recipient selection was treated differently from other resolutions adopted during the same quorate meeting.
“The receipt of documents by a member cannot, as a matter of principle or of practice, be equated with that member’s attendance at, and participation in, the deliberations of a duly constituted meeting,” the six members wrote.
They said circulating meeting documents to absent members does not constitute participation.
“A meeting is constituted not merely by the circulation of papers, but by the physical or virtual presence of members, their participation in debate, and their exercise of a vote informed by that debate,” they wrote.
Members reject retrospective participation
The six members describe the proposed process as an attempt to obtain participation after the meeting had already taken place.
They argue that members who were absent did not hear the debate, question presenters or participate in the deliberations that preceded the vote.
“A member who was absent from the Meeting was not privy to the debate that preceded the vote on the PR selection, did not have the opportunity to pose questions, to hear the responses of the presenter or of fellow members, or to be persuaded or dissuaded in the course of live deliberation,” they wrote.
“For such a member now to be approached, after the fact, and invited to offer a view is not a cure for their absence,” they added. “It is, in substance, an attempt to manufacture participation retrospectively in a process that has already been concluded.”
Mphwatiwa said the central concern was that the meeting had already reached quorum and had transacted the other business on its agenda.
“But only on this one, on the PR selection, it was like left in suspense because the chair indicated that they want to solicit input from the people who were absent or who had given their apologies,” she said.
“We are saying it is wrong according to governance, because if the meeting had reached the quorum, it was expected or so to be concluded even on this agenda item.”
The members warn that allowing absent members to influence the outcome after the meeting could undermine the purpose of quorum and attendance requirements.
“To conflate the two is, in our respectful view, to render the concept of quorum and attendance meaningless,” they wrote.
They further argue that the practice could create a precedent in which attendance at CCM meetings becomes less meaningful because absent members could still influence decisions after deliberations have ended.
Dispute could delay Principal Recipient selection
The dispute comes as Malawi works to finalize arrangements for Grant Cycle 8, with more than $525 million in Global Fund support at stake for programs addressing HIV, tuberculosis and malaria.
The country faces an Oct. 5 deadline for the funding process, increasing pressure on the CCM to resolve the dispute and complete the Principal Recipient selection process.
Mphwatiwa said the delay was particularly concerning because Malawi needs to identify a Principal Recipient for the community component of the Global Fund application.
“This is critical because we are waiting to have a PR, a Principal Recipient for the community component of the Global Fund application,” she said.
“And if we are in silence like this, then it means we are delaying, and it may have negative repercussions moving forward.”
The six members maintain that the meeting had attained the requisite quorum and that the decision on the Principal Recipient was made by members present and voting.
They say any subsequent attempt to obtain views from absent members creates a fundamental procedural problem.
Six members withhold consent
The six CCM members have formally withheld their consent to any process involving further votes, comments, input or endorsements from members who did not attend the Aug. 18 meeting in relation to Item 8.
They have asked the CCM leadership not to initiate such a process.
If the process has already begun, they want it “immediately halted” and any votes, comments or endorsements received through it disregarded.
They further want the resolution reached by members present and voting on Aug. 18 to be treated as “final and binding.”
The members said the issue was not merely technical, arguing that the proposed process could expose the CCM to serious and lasting questions about the legitimacy of the Principal Recipient selection.
They also warned of potential reputational and governance consequences in dealings with the Global Fund and other stakeholders.
The objectors identified two possible consequences of obtaining additional votes.
If additional votes could change the original outcome, they said, the decision of the quorate meeting could be overturned through a process that lacked collective deliberation and a contemporaneous vote.
If the additional votes were merely intended to endorse or validate the existing decision, they argued that the exercise could create a misleading impression that the decision had broader considered support than it actually received at the meeting.
Focus on transparency and community representation
Mphwatiwa said the group’s objective was to ensure that the Principal Recipient selection process remained transparent and reflected community interests.
“I am hoping that the information will be used for helping the agenda that we have, that the selection of the PR should be transparent and also should reflect the voice of the communities,” she said.
The dispute follows earlier concerns surrounding Malawi’s Global Fund application and Principal Recipient selection process, including scrutiny over the involvement of civil society representatives and the handling of assessment processes.
The six members argue that treating the Principal Recipient decision differently from other resolutions adopted at the same meeting creates an inconsistent standard.
“Such inconsistency is inherently unfair to the members who did attend, deliberate and vote in good faith,” they wrote.
They said the approach could invite challenges based on “procedural irregularity and unequal treatment of similarly placed resolutions.”
The Principal Recipient selection is significant because the successful agencies will be responsible for implementing programs financed through the next Global Fund grant cycle.
The Global Fund is a major source of financing for Malawi’s response to HIV, tuberculosis and malaria, making the integrity of the selection process important to government health programs and communities that depend on Global Fund-supported interventions.
Members reserve right to escalate dispute
The six members have reserved the right to escalate the matter beyond the CCM if their concerns are not addressed.
“We reserve all our rights as members of the CCM,” they wrote, including the right to raise the matter through internal governance structures.
They added that if the concerns were not satisfactorily resolved, they could bring the issue to the Global Fund Secretariat and any other relevant oversight body.
Mphwatiwa said the group had so far focused on formally communicating its concerns rather than outlining additional action.
“I think what we did was just to show them that this is wrong,” she said. “As of now, we don’t have any other way forward as to what will happen if they still continue.”
She said the objection was also copied to people who could potentially be approached for additional input, allowing them to consider the governance concerns before responding to any request.
The members reiterated their commitment to the CCM and good governance.
“We take this opportunity to reiterate our continued commitment to the work of the CCM and to the highest standards of good governance in its proceedings,” they wrote.
The chairperson and CCM Secretariat have not responded to the formal objection, according to Mphwatiwa.
Efforts to obtain a response from the CCM chairperson were unsuccessful by publication time.
The controversy now places the CCM under pressure to demonstrate that the Principal Recipient selection can withstand scrutiny while meeting the Global Fund’s deadlines.
For the six dissenting members, the issue is ultimately about whether a decision made by a properly constituted meeting can later be reopened through correspondence with members who were not present.
They object that allowing such a process would weaken the meaning of quorum, blur the distinction between attendance and document circulation, and create uncertainty over when a CCM decision is final.
With the October 5, 2026 deadline approaching, the CCM must balance the urgency of completing Malawi’s Global Fund application with demands for procedural clarity, transparency and accountability.
The six members say the resolution reached by those present on August 18, 2026 should stand unless it is overturned through a properly constituted process rather than through what they describe as retrospective participation
