By Burnett Munthali
The Speaker of the National Assembly has sent a formal letter to Sameer Suleman, a Member of Parliament from the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP), requesting an explanation as to why he visited the State Produce and Fertilizer Reserve Fund Management (SFFRFM) without notifying her office or seeking permission. The Speaker’s inquiry, which has sparked considerable debate, highlights concerns over the procedures that MPs must follow when visiting government facilities.
Suleman’s visit to the SFFRFM, which is a public government office, has become the subject of controversy, with the Speaker’s office questioning whether such visits should be cleared with her office beforehand. The request for an explanation has drawn attention to the protocols and expectations for elected officials when accessing state institutions.
However, Suleman has responded defiantly, stating that government offices are public spaces and that no special permission should be required for him, as an elected official, to visit them. “Government offices are public offices, not private estates that someone should seek permission from to visit,” Suleman asserted. He emphasized that these offices exist to serve the public and should not be treated as personal property that requires prior authorization to access.
The issue has sparked a lively public discussion, with many voicing their opinions in support of Suleman’s position. One commenter on social media shared their view: “It’s not someone’s field, it’s for the public. It’s a public place that can be visited anytime.” The sentiment resonates with many who believe that government offices, funded by taxpayer money, should be accessible to all citizens, including elected officials, at any time.
Others took to social media to question why the issue had become a matter of such concern. One comment humorously referenced former President Bingu wa Mutharika’s approach, stating, “Bingu used the spirit to just visit without notice, as you said, mmmmmm, Michael Usi used the same way, so why this guy?” This remark suggests that past leaders had the freedom to visit public institutions without the bureaucratic restrictions that are currently being imposed.
The debate intensified with criticisms about the handling of a fertilizer warehouse and the management of identification documents, which some people felt was being mishandled by government officials. “Warehouse for fertilizer but why were you keeping IDs? Shame on you, Gottani,” one comment read, showing public frustration over the management of such matters.
Despite the outcry, Suleman’s stance has garnered support among many who feel that the Speaker’s request is an overreach. “Nonsense! This is the end of MCP,” one individual declared, suggesting that the Malawi Congress Party (MCP) might suffer politically as a result of the controversy.
On the other hand, some political figures and commentators have expressed concern about the potential ramifications of Suleman’s defiant response. “Sameer Suleman is way too big, sangamuthee,” one comment read, reflecting the perception that Suleman’s influence in the political sphere is growing, and his actions could have political implications.
As the debate continues, the issue of public access to government offices and the protocols for elected officials visiting state institutions remains a contentious topic. The public response highlights a broader debate about the accessibility and transparency of government operations. Whether or not this issue will have lasting political consequences is uncertain, but it has certainly sparked significant public engagement and debate in Malawi.