Malawi Freedom Network 
By MFN News Desk Team
Malawi Freedom Network (MFN)
11 October 2026
Malawi’s state-owned Agricultural Development and Marketing Corporation (ADMARC) is facing serious questions over public procurement after a proposed K2.97 billion contract for 100 tarpaulins attracted public outrage and intervention by the Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB).
The controversial deal, involving Maiden Investment, has raised fundamental questions about value for money, procurement transparency and the responsibility of public officials entrusted with managing taxpayers’ money.
The ACB has since stopped ADMARC from proceeding with the contract pending scrutiny of the procurement process.
At the centre of the controversy is a figure that demands a convincing explanation: K29.67 million for a single tarpaulin.
K29.67 Million for One Tarpaulin: Where Is the Value for Money?
According to reports, ADMARC selected Maiden Investment to supply 100 tarpaulins at a total proposed contract price of K2,966,980,045.
The arithmetic is straightforward: each tarpaulin would cost approximately K29.67 million.
That figure has triggered public questions about whether the proposed expenditure represents value for money, particularly when the corporation is responsible for supporting agricultural marketing and safeguarding food commodities.
Malawi24 reported that market checks found large industrial-grade tarpaulins available for less than K3 million each. However, ADMARC’s publicly reported procurement notice did not disclose sufficient technical specifications to establish whether the products under consideration were directly comparable.
That qualification does not remove the need for answers. It makes a transparent explanation even more important.
What are the exact dimensions, thickness, material specifications and expected lifespan of these tarpaulins? What delivery, transportation, installation or other costs are included in the contract? How were the prices evaluated against comparable products in the market?
ADMARC must provide the evidence behind the price rather than expect the public to accept the figure without scrutiny.
ACB Intervention Raises the Stakes
On 9 October 2026, ACB Acting Director General Gabriel Chembezi issued a restriction notice directing ADMARC not to proceed with the procurement or award the contract to Maiden Investment or another company without the Bureau’s written consent.
The restriction concerns procurement reference number ADMARC/NCB/TP/2026/2027/02 and relates to a suspected offence under the Corrupt Practices Act. The intervention does not, by itself, establish that corruption occurred or prove wrongdoing by the company involved.
Nevertheless, the development raises an important question: why did a procurement exercise involving billions of kwacha reach the stage of an intended contract award before the concerns attracted such intense public attention?
The investigation should establish whether the procurement followed the law, whether the evaluation was properly conducted, and whether the proposed price can be justified by the specifications and costs involved.
If officials followed the rules and the price is reasonable, the documentation should demonstrate that. If investigators uncover irregularities, those responsible must be held accountable in accordance with the law.
ADMARC Must Explain Itself to Malawians
ADMARC is not an ordinary private business spending money belonging only to its owners. It is a public institution whose operations affect farmers, food security and the wider agricultural economy.
Every kwacha spent must therefore be justified by a clear operational need and a demonstrable public benefit.
The concern is not simply that tarpaulins are expensive. It is that a proposed expenditure of almost K3 billion has generated serious questions about whether the public is receiving a fair deal.
A responsible procurement process should be able to demonstrate competition, appropriate technical specifications, credible price comparisons, proper authorisation and effective oversight.
ADMARC should publish or explain the relevant procurement records, including the technical requirements, evaluation criteria, number of participating bidders, comparative bid prices and reasons for selecting the successful bidder, subject to applicable legal requirements.
The Public Procurement and Disposal of Assets Authority (PPDA) has also sought an explanation of the specifications and cost, according to published reports. That scrutiny is essential to determining whether the proposed price can be defended.
Questions That Demand Answers
The public deserves clear answers to five fundamental questions:
- Who approved the proposed expenditure? ADMARC should identify the relevant approval process and demonstrate that the required controls were followed.
- How was the price calculated? The corporation must explain the specifications, unit cost and additional expenses that produce a total of nearly K3 billion.
- How competitive was the tender? The number of bidders, their quoted prices and the evaluation process should be examined.
- Was the selection process impartial? Investigators should establish whether any conflicts of interest or improper influence affected the procurement, without assuming that such conduct occurred.
- What happens if irregularities are established? Any unlawful conduct should attract appropriate action under Malawi’s laws, regardless of the position of the individuals involved.
These are not unreasonable demands. They are basic expectations of accountability whenever public money is at stake.
No More Silence on Public Procurement
The ACB’s intervention provides an opportunity to establish the facts before public funds are committed to the proposed deal.
ADMARC should cooperate fully with the investigation, while the PPDA should clarify whether the procurement complied with applicable public procurement requirements. The findings should be communicated transparently, subject to lawful investigative restrictions.
The company selected for the contract must also be afforded a fair opportunity to respond to questions about the procurement. An unusually high price can justify investigation, but it is not, on its own, proof of bribery, fraud or collusion.
Related stories Why Can’t ADMARC Buy Tarpaulins Directly? Suleman Chitera Questions K3 Billion Deal
The bottom line is simple: a K2.97 billion public procurement cannot be defended by silence. It must be defended by evidence.
Malawians have every reason to demand accountability over public expenditure. If the proposed tarpaulin price is justified, ADMARC should demonstrate why. If the investigation establishes wrongdoing, the law must take its course.
Public money demands public accountability. ADMARC must provide answers, and the relevant oversight institutions must establish whether this deal represents value for money or a procurement failure that requires corrective action.
