Dalitso Kabambe, one of the presidential aspirant for the UTM party, has called on delegates to vote for visionary leaders at the upcoming elective conference.
Speaking to Bua Central Region delegates in Kasungu District, he expressed confidence in his ability to lead the party to victory in the 2025 general elections.
“I’m very optimistic that if I am voted into the UTM presidential seat and win next year’s polls, my experience will help address the challenges Malawians face today,” Kabambe stated.
UTM Bua Central Region Governor Gerald Mbewe hailed Kabambe’s remarks, underscoring the need for intelligent leadership to ensure the party’s success.
The UTM party’s 2024 elective conference is scheduled for November 17.
Other news
- MCP’s fury: Ruling party unleashes vitriol against Mutharika after scathing national address
By Twink Jones Gadama
In a bizarre display of outrage, the ruling Malawi Congress Party (MCP) has launched a vicious attack on former President Peter Mutharika, barely two days after he delivered a scathing national address that tore into the party’s governance record.
Mutharika’s address, which was his first since leaving office, was a constructive and hopeful message that highlighted the MCP’s failures in running the government. However, instead of addressing the substance of Mutharika’s criticisms, the MCP has chosen to launch a personal and vitriolic attack on the former president.
In a shocking statement, MCP’s learned minister, Kabwira, who was once a lecturer and educated in Botswana, claimed that Mutharika is old and that his supporters are using and forcing him. Kabwira’s statement was all the more remarkable for its failure to dispute any of the points raised by Mutharika in his address.
Not to be outdone, MCP agent Undule Mwakasangula jumped into the fray, accusing Mutharika of making a national address without permission. Mwakasangula’s claim has been widely ridiculed, with many pointing out that there is no law in Malawi that prohibits former presidents from addressing the nation.
The MCP’s furious reaction to Mutharika’s address has left many in Malawi scratching their heads. “It’s clear that the MCP is completely out of touch with the people,” said one observer. “Instead of addressing the real issues facing the country, they’re busy launching personal attacks on Mutharika. It’s a shameful display of desperation.”
Others have noted that the MCP’s behavior is eerily reminiscent of an opposition party, rather than a ruling party. “The MCP is acting like it’s in opposition, not in government,” said another observer. “It’s a bizarre sight to see a ruling party so clearly out of its depth.”
As the MCP continues to flail in response to Mutharika’s address, many in Malawi are left wondering what the party’s next move will be. One thing is certain, however: the MCP’s furious reaction to Mutharika’s address has only served to highlight the party’s own failures and weaknesses.
In the end, it seems that Mutharika’s address has struck a nerve with the MCP. As one commentator noted, “Mutharika hit the nail on the head with his address. The MCP’s reaction is proof that he’s got them rattled.”
- MACRA’s decision to procure social media monitoring machine: Malawi Freedom Network Exclusive with Rick Dzida
By Burnett Munthali
Introduction
Rick Dzida is a prominent Malawian social commentator and analyst known for his critical perspectives on governance, public policy, and socio-economic issues. With years of experience in observing and dissecting government decisions, Dzida is widely respected for his balanced and insightful analyses. His commentary often highlights the importance of transparency, accountability, and democratic principles in fostering sustainable development and protecting citizens’ rights. Dzida is a trusted voice in Malawi’s civic space, contributing to informed public discourse on matters of national significance.
Welcome Remarks
Thank you for joining us for this exclusive interview, Rick Dzida. It is a privilege to have you share your thoughts on MACRA’s controversial decision to procure a $1.5 million social media monitoring machine. As concerns over this decision escalate among citizens and civil society groups, your expert insights will help shed light on the potential implications for Malawi’s democratic rights, resource management, and socio-economic priorities. Let’s delve into the questions.
Thank you for having me. It’s always an honor to contribute to such critical discussions, especially on a matter as significant as this one. The decision by MACRA to procure a social media monitoring machine raises important questions about priorities, governance, and the protection of democratic values. I hope that through this dialogue, we can provide clarity on the concerns raised by citizens and civil society while proposing practical solutions that balance national interests with the pressing needs of the Malawian people. Let’s dive right in.
Questions
1) Priority of government spending
Question: The Concerned Citizens of Malawi have expressed concern that the government is prioritizing the procurement of a $1.5 million social media monitoring machine at a time when the country is facing severe shortages of essential goods like food, fuel, and medicines. Do you agree with this assessment? How should the government balance its spending on surveillance versus addressing urgent socio-economic challenges?
Rick Dzida (RD):
The Concerned Citizens’ concerns are absolutely valid. The decision to allocate $1.5 million to social media monitoring raises questions about the government’s spending priorities, especially when citizens are struggling to access basic essentials like food, fuel, and medicines.In my opinion, the government should focus on stabilizing the economy and addressing these urgent needs. Economic stability directly impacts the quality of life for Malawians.
If such technology is deemed necessary, the government must provide clear justifications for its procurement and ensure the process is transparent and accountable. Additionally, alternative, cost-effective solutions—such as partnerships with universities or using open-source tools—should be explored to achieve the same objectives without diverting critical resources.
Ultimately, socio-economic challenges must take precedence, and surveillance spending should never compromise essential public services or development programs.
2) Impact on democratic freedoms
Question: The Concerned Citizens argue that this move by the government infringes on fundamental freedoms of speech and access to information. What is your stance on this? How might this initiative affect freedom of expression and public discourse in Malawi, especially within a democratic framework?
RD: This initiative indeed poses a serious threat to freedom of expression, which is a cornerstone of democracy. Malawi’s Constitution protects freedom of expression, but implementing such surveillance could lead to self-censorship among citizens who fear being monitored.
This chilling effect could stifle public discourse, discouraging people from engaging in debates or expressing dissenting opinions. In extreme cases, such surveillance could be weaponized to target critics, fostering a culture of fear and diminishing trust in democratic institutions.
To ensure a balance between national security and democratic freedoms, the government must establish clear oversight mechanisms and ensure the technology is used transparently and proportionately. Without these safeguards, the country risks eroding its democratic foundations.
3) Mismanagement of resources
Question: The statement critiques the decision to allocate such a significant amount of money to surveillance technology, given the country’s current economic and healthcare crises. Do you believe this represents mismanagement of funds, or is there a legitimate need for such technology to combat misinformation?
RD: This decision certainly reflects mismanagement of resources. While combating misinformation is important, allocating $1.5 million to surveillance during a healthcare and economic crisis shows a lack of prioritization. That money could make a substantial difference in addressing immediate needs, such as healthcare or education.
That said, social media monitoring can help combat misinformation and hate speech. However, the government must adopt a balanced approach. Such technology should only be pursued if the country’s pressing socio-economic challenges have been adequately addressed.
4) Public trust and accountability
Question: With the government’s focus on social media monitoring, there is concern it may be undermining public trust by prioritizing control over citizen welfare. How do you think the public perceives such decisions in terms of accountability and transparency? Could this affect the relationship between the government and its citizens, especially as elections approach?
RD: The public perception of this decision is overwhelmingly negative. Many see it as the government prioritizing control and surveillance over addressing citizens’ welfare. This erodes trust and reinforces suspicions of hidden agendas.
A lack of transparency in the decision-making process only deepens this mistrust. Citizens feel excluded and fear their freedoms are under threat, leading to resentment toward the government.
In the lead-up to elections, such moves could alienate voters, increase support for opposition parties, and even spark protests. Citizens are likely to hold the government accountable at the polls for actions perceived as undermining their rights and welfare.
5) Alternative solutions
Question: While the issue of misinformation is important, the Concerned Citizens suggest funds should be redirected to sectors like healthcare and food security. What alternative measures would you recommend for combating misinformation without compromising democratic rights or diverting resources from essential services?
RD: There are numerous cost-effective and democratic alternatives to expensive surveillance machines. For instance:
1) Media Literacy Programs: Educate citizens on how to critically evaluate online information.
2) Fact-Checking Partnerships: Collaborate with independent organizations to verify the accuracy of content.
3) Public Awareness Campaigns: Promote the importance of fact-checking before sharing information.
4) Community Initiatives: Support grassroots programs that empower citizens to identify and combat misinformation.
5) Collaboration with Social Media Platforms: Encourage platforms to flag false information and prioritize verified content.
These alternatives not only address misinformation effectively but also uphold democratic principles and allow resources to be directed toward critical sectors like healthcare and education.
Thank you, Rick Dzida, for sharing your invaluable perspectives on this pressing issue. Your insights have provided a comprehensive understanding of the challenges and implications surrounding MACRA’s decision. Your suggestions for alternative approaches and your emphasis on balancing democratic freedoms with national security are especially enlightening. We appreciate your time and thoughtful contributions to this discussion.
Rick Dzida (RD): Thank you, Burnett, for having me. It has been a pleasure sharing my thoughts on this critical matter. I hope these insights contribute to fostering a more constructive dialogue about the balance between national security, democratic freedoms, and socio-economic priorities. I appreciate the platform and look forward to engaging in future discussions on issues that affect our nation.
- A Cry for Justice: The Urgent Need to Restore Democracy in Our Beloved Nation
By Comrade jumbe
“He who cuts down the tree of justice shall one day sit in the heat of its absence.”
Today, our beloved nation stands at a crossroads, teetering on the edge of losing the hard-won freedoms that define us.
The arrest of Mr. Lyton Mangochi and the continued harassment of politicians and activists Is one among examples of our dying democracy for it is not just an affront to these individuals but a direct assault on democracy itself.
We must rise to the occasion and demand accountability, for silence in the face of injustice is complicity.
Democracy Under Siege
Democracy is the heartbeat of any free nation.
When leaders act in ways that silence dissent, suppress opposing voices, and use public institutions as tools of oppression, they murder the very essence of governance by the people, for the people, and of the people.
Today, the actions of the government may appear powerful to those who support blindly but the people will not forget the betrayal of their trust.
The arrest of Mr. Lyton Mangochi and the this senseless arrests of political enemies is a chilling reminder of how far we have regressed.
It reeks of a return to the dark days of autocracy—a time when speaking the truth was a crime, and freedom was a distant dream.
Have we learned nothing from our past struggles of our fathers?Shall we allow their sacrifices to be in vain?
Stop Using Public Funds to Oppress the People
It is both ironic and tragic that the taxes paid by hardworking citizens are being used to fund the very machinery that oppresses them
A Swahili saying goes, “When the shepherds fight, the sheep suffer.” The police, whose role is to protect and serve the people, are now being used to suppress them we have become police state. This is a betrayal of their duty and a gross misuse of public resources.
Governance is not about wielding power; it is about serving the people.
Arresting activists and politicians who dare to speak out is not governance—it is tyranny.
We, the people, demand better. We refuse to pay for the destruction of our own democracy.
“A house built on lies will crumble.” This government must remember that it cannot silence the truth forever.
The voices of the oppressed will grow louder, and justice will prevail.
The immediate release of Mr. Lyton Mangochi is not just a demand; it is a moral obligation.
His detention is a symbol of a government that has lost its way, and his release will be the first step toward restoring our collective faith in democracy.
We call upon the government to stop this slide into autocracy. Let our leaders remember, “The king who does not listen to his people will not reign for long.”
The people of this nation will not tolerate a return to one-party rule. We will not allow the clock of history to be turned back to the days of fear and oppression.
The Path Forward
The road ahead will not be easy, but we must walk it with courage and conviction. We must demand justice, accountability, and the protection of our democratic ideals.
As the proverb says, “Wisdom is like fire. People take it from others.” Let us learn from the lessons of the past and ensure that we do not repeat them.
Let us stand together and demand the release of Mr. Lyton Mangochi for it is not about for a person but it is about protecting and safeguarding our democracy.
Let us hold our leaders accountable and ensure that our democracy remains intact.
For if we allow injustice to thrive, we will all suffer its consequences and collectively we shall perish as the nation.
” Our greatest enemy today is the betrayal of our democratic principles.
Let us root it out and rebuild a nation founded on justice, freedom, and truth.
The time to act is now. Together, we can and must save our democracy.
My pen is mightier than a sword
- Former President Peter Mutharika’s National Address Sparks Debate
By Twink Jones Gadama
A recent national address by former President Peter Mutharika has ignited a heated debate, with some critics accusing him of undermining the authority of the current president. However, others argue that Mutharika’s address was well within his rights as a former head of state and leader of the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP).
At the center of the controversy is Undule Mwakasangula, an agent of the Malawi Congress Party (MCP), who has been vocal in his criticism of Mutharika’s address. Mwakasangula claims that Mutharika’s actions are a clear attempt to undermine the authority of President Lazarus Chakwera.
However, a closer examination of the Malawi Constitution reveals that former presidents are not prohibited from addressing the nation through various media channels. In fact, the Constitution guarantees freedom of expression, which includes the right to communicate one’s views to the public.
It’s worth noting that Mutharika’s address did not claim or imply that he is the current head of state. Rather, he spoke as the leader of the DPP and a former president, addressing his supporters and the broader Malawian public.
Mwakasangula’s criticism of Mutharika’s address has been met with skepticism by some, who argue that he is overstepping his bounds. “Mwakasangula should stop poking his nose into issues he doesn’t understand,” said one observer. “He failed to cite a single section of the Constitution that prohibits former presidents from addressing their supporters through media channels.”
The controversy has also raised questions about the role of the Malawi Broadcasting Corporation (MBC), which is a public broadcaster funded by taxpayers’ money. While MBC is supposed to be an impartial platform for public discourse, critics argue that it has been hijacked by the MCP government and used as a propaganda tool.
In a surprising twist, some have questioned Mwakasangula’s motives, suggesting that his criticism of Mutharika’s address may be driven by a desire to curry favor with the MCP government. “Mwakasangula is a failed activist who has been trying to advance his own interests by attacking the DPP,” said one commentator. “It’s no surprise that he’s now trying to defend the MCP government’s actions.”
As the debate continues to rage, one thing is clear: the Malawi Constitution guarantees freedom of expression, and former presidents like Peter Mutharika have the right to communicate their views to the public. Whether or not one agrees with Mutharika’s views, it’s essential to respect his right to express them.
- The Implications of Undule Mwakasangula’s Accusations Against Former President Peter Mutharika: A Constitutional Perspective
By Twink Jones Gadama
In the complex political landscape of Malawi, the interplay between former and current leaders often stirs controversy, particularly when it comes to the interpretation of constitutional rights and responsibilities. The recent accusations leveled by Undule Mwakasangula, an agent of the Malawi Congress Party (MCP), against former President Arthur Peter Mutharika, have ignited a debate about the boundaries of political discourse and the rights of former leaders to engage with the public. Mwakasangula’s assertion that Mutharika’s national address undermines the authority of the current president raises critical questions about the nature of political communication, the role of former leaders in a democratic society, and the legal frameworks that govern such interactions.
At the heart of Mwakasangula’s accusations is the claim that Mutharika’s address constitutes an infringement on the authority of the sitting president. This perspective suggests a zero-sum view of political power, where the actions of one leader are seen as a direct challenge to another. However, this interpretation overlooks the fundamental principles of democratic governance, where the exchange of ideas and opinions is not only encouraged but is essential for a healthy political environment. The Constitution of Malawi guarantees freedom of expression, which extends to all citizens, including former presidents. Mutharika, as a former head of state, retains the right to communicate with the public, share his views, and engage in national discourse without fear of retribution or accusations of undermining authority.
Moreover, Mwakasangula’s criticism raises questions about the nature of authority itself. In a democratic system, authority is not absolute; it is contingent upon the consent of the governed and is subject to scrutiny and debate. The notion that a former president should remain silent or refrain from public engagement simply because they are no longer in power undermines the very essence of democracy. It suggests a political culture where dissent is stifled and where leaders are expected to retreat into silence once they leave office. This is not only detrimental to the democratic process but also risks creating a political environment characterized by fear and repression.
The accusation also highlights a broader issue within Malawian politics: the tendency to view political opposition as a threat rather than a vital component of a functioning democracy. Mwakasangula’s stance reflects a mindset that perceives any critique or alternative viewpoint as an attack on the current administration. This perspective can lead to a dangerous precedent where political discourse is curtailed, and individuals are discouraged from expressing their opinions for fear of being labeled as undermining authority. Such an environment stifles innovation, critical thinking, and the healthy exchange of ideas that are necessary for the progress of any nation.
Furthermore, the legal framework surrounding the rights of former presidents in Malawi is clear. The Constitution does not prohibit former leaders from engaging with the public or expressing their views on national issues. In fact, it can be argued that their experience and insights are invaluable to the ongoing political discourse. Former presidents, having held the highest office in the land, possess a unique perspective on governance, policy, and the challenges facing the nation. Their contributions can enrich public debate and provide a historical context that is often lacking in contemporary discussions.
In this light, Mutharika’s decision to address the nation should be viewed not as an act of undermining the current president but as an exercise of his constitutional rights. It is a demonstration of his continued engagement with the political landscape of Malawi, which is a hallmark of a vibrant democracy. By sharing his thoughts and experiences, Mutharika contributes to the collective understanding of the nation’s challenges and potential solutions. This engagement can foster dialogue, encourage collaboration, and ultimately strengthen the democratic fabric of the country.
Moreover, Mwakasangula’s accusations may inadvertently reflect a deeper insecurity within the current administration. The perception that Mutharika’s address poses a threat to the authority of the sitting president suggests a lack of confidence in the current leadership’s ability to govern effectively. In a healthy political environment, former leaders should be seen as allies in the pursuit of national progress rather than adversaries to be silenced. The current administration should embrace constructive criticism and differing viewpoints as opportunities for growth and improvement, rather than viewing them as challenges to be quashed.
The political dynamics in Malawi are further complicated by the historical context of leadership transitions in the country. The legacy of past administrations, including Mutharika’s, continues to shape the political landscape, and former leaders often play a significant role in influencing public opinion and political discourse. The ability of former presidents to engage with the public is not only a constitutional right but also a reflection of the ongoing evolution of Malawi’s democracy. As the nation grapples with pressing issues such as economic development, social justice, and governance, the insights of former leaders can provide valuable guidance and perspective.
In conclusion, Undule Mwakasangula’s accusations against former President Arthur Peter Mutharika raise important questions about the nature of political authority, the rights of former leaders, and the role of public discourse in a democratic society. The Constitution of Malawi guarantees freedom of expression to all citizens, including former presidents, and it is essential to uphold these rights to foster a vibrant and inclusive political environment. Rather than viewing Mutharika’s engagement as a threat, the current administration should embrace the contributions of former leaders as part of a broader dialogue aimed at addressing the challenges facing the nation. Ultimately, a healthy democracy thrives on the exchange of ideas, the respect for differing viewpoints, and the recognition that all voices, regardless of their political affiliation, have a role to play in shaping the future of Malawi.
150
x150.jpg 150w, https://malawifreedomnetwork.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/01/IMG-20250122-WA0149-768x768.jpg 768w, https://malawifreedomnetwork.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/01/IMG-20250122-WA0149.jpg 1080w" sizes="(max-width: 640px) 100vw, 640px" />
