For weeks now, the narrative has been loud, relentless and politically damaging: the Constituency Development Fund (CDF) has stalled because the government has no money.
From Parliament to radio talk shows, from civil society organisations to social media platforms, one message has dominated public discourse — that the K5 billion allocated to each constituency is not reaching councils because government has failed to release the funds.
The accusations have become so widespread that many Malawians have accepted them as fact.
But are they?
Or is the country debating the wrong issue?
As Parliament resumed this week, the delayed rollout of the reformed CDF became one of the most fiercely contested issues in the National Assembly. Members of Parliament from both sides of the House questioned why, more than three months after the 2026/27 financial year began, communities had yet to witness the implementation of projects promised under the K1.145 trillion programme.
The criticism was not confined to politicians.
The Centre for Social Accountability and Transparency (CSAT) also entered the debate.
Its Executive Director, Willy Kambwandira, said the organisation’s monitoring had found no evidence that councils had received the K5 billion allocations, despite repeated assurances from government that implementation had commenced.
He argued that government should be transparent about the status of the money because withholding such information risks eroding public confidence.
Kambwandira went even further.
He suggested that the delays could be symptomatic of wider fiscal pressures confronting government, arguing that increasing dependence on development partners to support the national budget may be affecting the release of CDF resources.
His position reinforced a growing public perception that perhaps there simply was no money.
Inside Parliament, the questions became even more direct.
Lilongwe City Lumbadzi legislator Denis Chalera reminded government that the financial year began on April 1 and yet, by early July, there was little evidence of development taking place in constituencies.
His concern was simple.
Constituents judge Members of Parliament by what they can see.
When roads are not repaired, classrooms are not built and health centres remain incomplete, the public naturally concludes that CDF has failed.
Nkhata Bay Chintheche MP Noah Chimpeni echoed those frustrations.
He pointed to unfinished public infrastructure, including health projects that had stalled following the withdrawal of donor funding, and questioned whether such projects would ever benefit from the new CDF arrangement.
Mzimba West legislator Aeckim Kumwenda also demanded answers over stalled health infrastructure projects in his constituency, saying communities had been informed that some projects fell outside the revised CDF framework.
Dedza Kasina MP Joshua Malango asked perhaps the most politically uncomfortable question of all. If government is already struggling to settle outstanding bills owed to contractors, how will it realistically finance one of the largest decentralisation programmes in Malawi’s history?
Leader of Opposition Simplex Chithyola-Banda struck a similar tone. He argued that delayed CDF disbursement was denying communities development and insisted Parliament had a duty to demand answers on behalf of Malawians.
Beyond Parliament, the frustration is already affecting communities.
In Mzimba South West, Member of Parliament Khumbo Kachali publicly declared that he was considering using his own money to buy fuel for the district council’s grader so that badly damaged roads could finally be repaired while people continued waiting for CDF funding.
On the surface, all these voices appear to point to one conclusion: Government has failed to fund the CDF.
But there is another side to this story.
And surprisingly, it has received very little public attention.
The reality is that President Peter Mutharika’s CDF operating today is fundamentally different from the one Malawians have known for years. Under the previous arrangement, central government transferred CDF money directly into council accounts.
District councils became custodians of the funds and were responsible for managing procurement, paying contractors and implementing projects. On paper, the system looked simple. In practice, it became one of the weakest links in local governance.
Audit reports over the years consistently highlighted serious weaknesses in the management of CDF resources.
Projects were delayed. Money was diverted from its intended purpose. Funds meant for one project were redirected to another. Some projects were poorly executed, while others existed only on paper despite substantial expenditure.
The consequence was devastating.
Billions of kwacha were spent, yet many communities continued to ask the same question every year: Where did the money go?
It is this history that explains why government decided to redesign the CDF model.
The reforms are not merely administrative. They represent a complete shift in how public development money is managed. Instead of depositing billions of kwacha directly into council accounts before projects are properly prepared, the new framework requires councils to first identify projects, conduct technical appraisals, complete procurement procedures and obtain all necessary approvals. Only after those processes have been completed are payments processed.
Crucially, the money is no longer meant to sit in council bank accounts awaiting expenditure. Payments are now processed through the National Local Government Finance Committee (NLGFC), significantly reducing opportunities for councils to divert resources to unplanned activities.
Principal Secretary for Decentralisation Peterson Ponderani explained exactly this point when responding to concerns over the delayed rollout. He made it clear that the current framework differs from the previous arrangement because resources are only released after projects have successfully gone through identification, technical appraisal and procurement.
In other words, councils are no longer receiving money first and deciding what to do later. The projects come first. The money follows. That distinction is critical.
It also changes the question Malawians should be asking. Perhaps the issue is not simply, “Where is the money?” Perhaps the more important question is: Has the new accountability system been implemented efficiently enough to allow development to begin without unnecessary delays?
That does not mean government is free from criticism.
Far from it.
If indeed the reforms are responsible for the delays, government has a duty to communicate that clearly and consistently. The absence of clear communication has allowed speculation to flourish. When citizens see no projects on the ground, hear MPs questioning the availability of funds and listen to civil society organisations expressing uncertainty, they naturally conclude that government has run out of money.
Government cannot blame the public for drawing that conclusion when it has failed to adequately explain the mechanics of the new system. Transparency is not optional. It is essential.
Government should go further than merely saying money is “trickling down.”
It should publish constituency-by-constituency progress reports showing which projects have been identified, which have completed technical appraisal, which are under procurement and which have already been approved for payment.
Such transparency would end speculation almost overnight. At the same time, critics should equally recognise that reforming a system long criticised for abuse inevitably comes with implementation challenges. The same voices demanding faster disbursement today were, only a few years ago, demanding stronger safeguards against corruption and misuse of public resources. It would be contradictory to condemn government both for weak controls yesterday and for introducing stronger controls today.
Ultimately, Malawians are less interested in whether councils physically receive billions of kwacha than whether roads are repaired, schools are built, bridges are completed, health centres are finished and markets become functional. That is the true measure of CDF.
The debate, therefore, should move beyond the simplistic question of whether there is money or not. The real debate should be whether the new CDF model can strike the delicate balance between speed and accountability. Can it protect taxpayers’ money from abuse while ensuring that communities receive development on time?
That is the question that deserves national attention.
The old CDF model left behind too many audit queries, too many abandoned projects and too many unanswered questions. If the new framework succeeds in closing those loopholes while delivering visible development, the current delays may ultimately prove to have been the price of building a more accountable system. The success or failure of the reformed CDF will therefore not be determined by today’s political rhetoric.
It will be determined by what Malawians see on the ground in the months ahead. If classrooms rise, roads are rehabilitated, health centres are completed and communities begin to experience the development they have long been promised, the debate will answer itself.
And if that happens, history may well remember that the biggest problem was never the absence of money. It was the failure to explain that the rules of the game had changed.
