By Kaguta Ngozo:
I have followed the recent statement by the Centre for Democracy and Economic Development Initiatives (CDEDI) concerning the Attorney General, Frank Mbeta, with a heavy heart. While I respect CDEDI’s role as a voice for the people, their call for him to step down over an old, unresolved matter feels less like a pursuit of justice and more like a rush to judgment. We need to pause and look at this issue calmly, without getting carried away by emotions or public pressure.
First, let’s not forget one of the simplest and most important rules of justice, a person is innocent until proven guilty. CDEDI’s letter talks about a warrant of arrest that was stopped by a court order. They present this as if it proves something shady happened. But honestly, it proves the opposite. It shows that a citizen—yes, even one holding a high office—used his right to challenge a state body in court. That right belongs to all of us. To obtain that order, Mbeta’s lawyers must have convinced the judge that something was wrong with the ACB’s process. The court agreed to intervene. That is not corruption. That is the system working the way it should.
Here’s another thing we seem to have forgotten, nobody is actually saying what happened in the end. CDEDI admits that Malawians are “not sure how the matter was concluded.” So we are now asking a man to lose his job based on something we are not even sure about? If the Director of Public Prosecutions looked at the file and decided there was no case to answer, then legally speaking, that should be the end of it. To ignore that and keep demanding answers based on rumours is not justice. It is mob rule dressed up as activism.
We should also be careful about how we talk about the court order itself. The letter mentions that the order came from Judge Zione Ntaba. But to say that getting an order from a certain judge automatically means the system is corrupt—that is a heavy accusation to make without proof. It suggests that whenever a public figure wins in court, something must be wrong. That is not fair to the judges, and it is not fair to the process. Unless someone has evidence that the judge was bribed or pressured, we should accept the court’s decision as legitimate.
Think about this, if we say that Mr Mbeta cannot fight corruption because he was once investigated, then we are saying that only people who have never been accused of anything can hold office. In Malawi today, accusations fly around all the time—sometimes true, sometimes not. If we follow this logic, we will soon run out of people to lead. In fact, going through an investigation and coming out clean might actually give someone a deeper understanding of how the system fails or succeeds. That experience could make him a better Attorney General, not a compromised one.
We also need to think about where this leads. If we set a rule that any minister can be pushed out because of an old allegation—even one that was never proven—then we are opening a door that will never close. Every political enemy will go hunting for the oldest story they can find, and no leader will ever feel safe enough to do their work. The country will be stuck in constant chaos, with everyone defending themselves instead of serving the people. The standard for stepping aside should be clear: an active case, a credible charge, not a closed file from years ago.
Corruption is a real problem and we need people of integrity to fight it. But let’s be clear, integrity does not mean never being accused. It means how you carry yourself when accusations come. Mr. Mbeta has the chance to show that—by doing his job, by strengthening the institutions that investigate everyone equally. If the ACB has new evidence, let them bring it forward. If a court finds him guilty, let him face the consequences. But until then, let’s respect the legal process that is supposed to protect all of us. Calling for someone’s head based on uncertainty is not bravery. It is just noise.
So before we demand that Frank Mbeta steps aside, let’s ask ourselves: do we want a country where decisions are made by courts and evidence, or one where they are made by public anger and incomplete stories? The answer to that question will tell us what kind of Malawi we are building.
