LILONGWE-(MaraviPost)-Attorney General (AG) Frank Mbeta has accused the media of misrepresenting his role in the controversial acquisition of Amaryllis Hotel and has told MPs that he never authorised or endorsed the purchase, a claim that has sparked a war of words with journalists.
Mbeta was appearing before the Public Accounts Committee (PAC) where he said reports that suggested his office gave a green light to the MK128.7 billion deal were false, and he was determined to set the record straight.
“I did not authorise or endorse the purchase,” Mbeta told the committee, his voice firm and resolute as he sought to distance himself from the contentious deal.
He then read from his letter of December 20, 2025, to show that his advice was conditional, a move that seemed to catch some committee members off guard.
“I advised the board to review the risks and ensure compliance with prudent investment principles and regulatory requirements before proceeding with the transaction,” Mbeta said, emphasising the cautious approach he had taken.
The Attorney General said the final decision was always for the Board of Trustees of the Public Service Pension Trust Fund (PSPTF), which has absolute discretion under the trust deed and pension laws, a point he seemed keen to stress.
A report from the Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB) and another from the Reserve Bank of Malawi (RBM) found no evidence of corruption but pointed to prudential issues relating to sound financial management, a finding that has raised more questions than answers.
Mbeta told MPs that his advice was based on those findings and that he had simply reminded the board of its fiduciary obligations, a claim that has sparked debate on the level of accountability.
“My role is to ensure compliance with legal and regulatory requirements. Commercial issues are outside my mandate,” said Mbeta, seemingly trying to deflect criticism.
He added that his advice required the board to satisfy itself that all conditions were met before proceeding, something he said some media reports had ignored, a claim that has sparked a heated debate on the role of the media in scrutinising government actions.