BLANTYRE-(MaraviPost)-The Public Accounts Committee (PAC) of Malawi’s Parliament sits at a pivotal moment in its oversight role.
The committee’s plan to submit its report to Parliament without the testimony of Colleen Zamba, a key witness with crucial information, raises significant questions about procedural fairness, the integrity of the investigative process, and ultimately, the pursuit of justice for the Malawian people.
Zamba’s repeated failure to appear before the PAC, citing medical reasons while also failing to provide medical documentation, complicates the situation.
Yet, despite these challenges, it is imperative for the PAC to either wait until Zamba can present her testimony or, at the very least, facilitate her participation through virtual means before moving forward.
Proceeding without her testimony risks undermining the credibility of the committee’s work and doing a disservice to the nation.
At the heart of this issue is the principle of thoroughness in parliamentary oversight. The PAC’s role is to scrutinize public spending and ensure accountability within government operations.
This responsibility demands that all relevant evidence is considered before drawing conclusions or making recommendations.
Colleen Zamba’s information is described as crucial, suggesting that her testimony could provide key insights or even pivotal evidence that might influence the committee’s findings.
To bypass such testimony risks producing an incomplete report, potentially overlooking critical facts that could alter the committee’s understanding of the matter at hand.
Moreover, justice is not just about speed or efficiency; it is about fairness and accuracy.
By submitting the report without Zamba’s input, the PAC could be perceived as rushing to judgment or prioritizing expediency over a comprehensive investigation.
This perception can damage public trust in parliamentary processes and feed narratives of partiality or negligence.
Malawi’s citizens deserve transparency and thoroughness, especially in matters concerning public funds and governance.
The PAC’s report, as a public document, should reflect the fullest possible account of facts — including every relevant testimony.
The issue of Zamba citing medical reasons for her absence, yet failing to provide medical documentation, introduces an element of complexity.
On one hand, it is important to respect genuine health concerns. No one should be compelled to testify while incapacitated or seriously ill.
On the other hand, accountability also requires verification.
The committee, and the public it serves, have a right to understand the circumstances behind repeated absences to ensure that excuses are not being abused to avoid scrutiny.
This lack of medical proof fuels skepticism and leaves the committee in a difficult position: whether to trust unverified claims or to insist on some form of proof before deciding on next steps.
In this context, modern technology offers a practical solution that balances empathy for health concerns with the need for testimony.
Virtual meetings and video conferencing have become standard tools worldwide, especially in situations where physical presence is difficult.
The PAC could facilitate a virtual hearing that allows Zamba to present her evidence without the need to travel or compromise her health.
This approach would demonstrate flexibility, respect for the witness’s condition, and a commitment to thorough fact-finding.
It would also signal to the public that the committee is making every effort to ensure that no stone is left unturned before finalizing its report.
Ignoring this option and proceeding without Zamba’s testimony could lead to several adverse outcomes. First, it invites critiques of the PAC’s report as incomplete or biased, undermining the report’s influence and authority.
Second, it risks encouraging other witnesses to avoid appearances, knowing that the committee might not insist on their participation.
This could weaken future investigations and erode the culture of accountability.
Third, it may deny the Malawian public the full truth, which is essential for informed debate, policy formulation, and ultimately, democratic governance.
The PAC’s decision also carries a broader symbolic weight.
Public institutions must demonstrate that they value due process and integrity above all.
When key witnesses are unable or unwilling to participate, the institution’s response reveals its true commitment to justice.
By holding on and ensuring that Zamba’s testimony is heard—whether in person or virtually—the PAC would affirm its role as a guardian of accountability and a champion of thorough, fair investigations.
While the urgency to present findings and move forward is understandable, it should never come at the cost of excluding critical testimony.
Colleen Zamba’s contribution to the Public Accounts Committee’s inquiry is too important to overlook.
The committee must exercise patience and creativity, leveraging virtual technologies if necessary, to hear her out.
This approach ensures that the final report will be comprehensive, credible, and just.
It will uphold the values of transparency and accountability that the people of Malawi expect and deserve.
To do otherwise would be to compromise the very purpose of parliamentary oversight and to risk doing an injustice far greater than any delay could cause.
The PAC stands at a crossroads, and the path to true justice demands that Zamba’s voice be heard before the report sees the light of day.
