LILONGWE-(MaraviPost)-Political analyst Chimwemwe Tsitsi has criticized Members of Parliament (MPs) for passing the amended Constituency Development Fund (CDF) Bill, arguing that the move serves their personal political interests rather than the nation’s needs.
Speaking in an interview with Maravi Post on Tuesday Tsitsi said MPs unanimously supported the bill because it enhances their influence in local development, which in turn boosts their political visibility.
“For me, it is totally political and in the individual interest of the MPs. That’s why nobody opposed it. The nation only cares that development funds are available, whether or not MPs are directly involved,” he said.
Tsitsi explained that MPs often promise development projects during election campaigns but lack the personal financial resources to deliver on such pledges. As a result, being associated with CDF implementation becomes an attractive and “tangible” way for them to demonstrate performance to their constituents.
He argued that this political motivation appears to be the main reason lawmakers pushed the bill through.
However, Tsitsi noted that the decision raises legal questions, particularly in light of a recent court ruling that declared MPs’ involvement in CDF management a conflict of interest, given their constitutional oversight role.
MPs have maintained that under the amended law they will not control the fund directly but will merely approve decisions made by councils and Area Development Committees, with District Commissioners acting as controlling officers.
But Tsitsi believes this explanation may not fully address the constitutional concerns outlined by the court.
“This may require further judicial review to determine whether the amendment is legally acceptable and whether it conflicts with the constitutional principle of separation of powers, especially within the decentralization framework,” he said.
Tsitsi added that although the bill is still awaiting presidential assent, stakeholders such as the Malawi Local Government Association (MALGA) which previously challenged MPs’ involvement in the CDF or any other interested party could consider returning to court for clarification on the legality of the amendments.
