Millions Spent, Questions Unanswered: The Growing Storm Over the Inosselia–Greenbelt Authority Deal

January 9, 2024

7 min read

Listen to this article

By Our Reporter

A growing public outcry over the joint venture between Inosselia Agro Africa and Malawi’s Greenbelt Authority (GBA) has put a painful question at the centre of the national conversation: what happened to the millions of kwacha in taxpayers’ money committed to the project, and why has it been so difficult for the public to see the books?

The controversy is no longer simply about an agricultural investment.

It has become a test of transparency, accountability and the government’s willingness to account for public resources.

The Centre for Democracy and Economic Development Initiatives (CDEDI) has demanded that the Attorney General initiate a full forensic audit into the joint venture, amid concerns surrounding the use of public funds, financial reporting and the management of the greenhouse project near Kamuzu International Airport.

At the heart of the controversy is an investment that has consumed millions of dollars and billions of kwacha at a time when ordinary Malawians continue to struggle with the rising cost of living and limited economic opportunities.

Millions of taxpayers’ money

According to information surrounding the project, Malawian taxpayers initially financed more than US$5.5 million, with further injections reportedly including K2.2 billion and K2.7 billion into the greenhouse project.

The financial commitments raise an obvious question: what exactly did Malawi get in return for this investment?

The concerns become even more serious when management costs are considered.

Inosselia was reportedly receiving approximately US$25,000 every month in management fees.

For ordinary Malawians, US$25,000 is not an abstract figure.

It represents money that could potentially support public services, agricultural programmes, health facilities, schools, irrigation schemes and other development priorities.

When public money is spent on a joint venture, citizens have a legitimate right to know how much was invested, how it was spent, what assets were created, what revenue was generated and whether the state is receiving a return on its investment.

That is the essence of public accountability.

Where are the financial statements?

One of the most troubling issues raised in the controversy is the reported failure by the company and the joint venture to publish annual financial statements.

There are also concerns that the venture had not declared dividends to the state despite the substantial public resources committed to it.

For a project involving taxpayers’ money, this raises serious questions.

A government investment is not private property.

It belongs, ultimately, to the people of Malawi.

That means citizens should not have to fight to find out what happened to their money.

The public should be able to establish how much was invested, how much the project generated, what expenses were incurred, what management fees were paid and whether the investment remains financially viable.

The oversight question

The controversy has also raised concerns about the extent to which the Ministry of Finance was able to exercise day-to-day oversight of the joint venture.

Reports that the company resisted opening its financial books to government oversight and independent state auditors have intensified calls for an investigation.

This is where the matter becomes bigger than Inosselia or the Greenbelt Authority.

It touches on the fundamental principle that public investment must be subject to public scrutiny.

If government institutions contribute billions of kwacha to a commercial venture, there must be mechanisms to independently verify how that money is being used.

There must also be clear reporting structures, audited accounts and safeguards against financial mismanagement.

Without these mechanisms, even a legitimate development project can become vulnerable to allegations of abuse.

The public deserves answers

Malawians have heard promises for years about transforming agriculture, creating jobs and turning the country into a productive and export-oriented economy.

Those ambitions are important.

But development cannot be built on secrecy.

The people who finance government programmes through taxes deserve answers when billions of kwacha are invested in projects on their behalf.

They deserve to know whether the greenhouse project is profitable.

They deserve to know whether public funds were used efficiently.

They deserve to know the identities of all major beneficiaries and contractors where disclosure is legally appropriate.

They deserve to know how management fees were determined and what services were provided in return.

And, most importantly, they deserve to know whether Malawi’s investment is producing the promised economic benefits.

Why a forensic audit matters

A forensic audit would go beyond simply checking whether figures add up.

It could establish the complete financial history of the joint venture, including the original capital injection, subsequent government funding, management fees, procurement transactions, revenues, assets, liabilities and any dividends or returns due to the state.

It could also determine whether public money was spent in accordance with approved agreements and applicable financial-management rules.

If everything was done properly, a transparent audit would help clear the air.

If irregularities occurred, the audit could identify them and provide evidence for corrective action.

That is why calls for an independent forensic audit should not automatically be treated as an attack on agricultural investment.

An audit is not a declaration of guilt. It is a mechanism for establishing the truth.

Malawi cannot afford another accountability crisis

The controversy comes at a time when Malawi is battling serious economic challenges.

Families are struggling to afford basic necessities. Farmers are facing high input costs. Young people are searching for employment. Government is under pressure to deliver better health, education and social services.

Against that background, every kwacha of public money matters.

Every dollar matters.

And every investment made in the name of Malawians must be capable of surviving public scrutiny.

The Greenbelt Authority was created to help transform Malawi’s agricultural sector through irrigation and commercial agriculture.

That mission is too important to be weakened by unanswered financial questions.

If the Inosselia partnership is successful, the government should have no reason to fear transparency.

If the project has encountered financial or operational difficulties, Malawians deserve to know that too.

Silence only deepens suspicion.

The bigger issue is trust

Ultimately, this controversy is about more than a greenhouse project near Kamuzu International Airport.

It is about trust.

When government tells citizens that their money is being invested to create jobs, increase agricultural production and generate wealth, citizens expect evidence.

When billions are committed, they expect accountability.

When concerns are raised, they expect answers.

And when an audit is demanded, they expect the authorities to investigate rather than allow the matter to disappear into bureaucratic silence.

Malawi cannot build a credible economy while public investments remain surrounded by unanswered questions.

The country needs successful agricultural projects—but it also needs transparent agricultural projects.

It needs investment—but investment governed by accountability.

It needs development—but development that ordinary Malawians can see, understand and trust.

A moment for transparency

The demand for a forensic audit therefore presents an opportunity.

Rather than allowing the controversy to become another unresolved political dispute, the authorities can subject the joint venture to an independent and comprehensive examination.

The findings should be made public to the greatest extent permitted by law.

If the books are clean, the audit will provide reassurance.

If there were mistakes, they can be corrected.

If public resources were misused, those responsible should be held accountable through due process.

But if Malawi simply looks away, the unanswered questions will remain.

And every unanswered question involving millions of dollars and billions of kwacha ultimately carries the same cost: the erosion of public trust.

For Malawians who contributed the money, the demand is simple.

Show us the books. Explain where the money went. Tell us what the country received. And account for every kwacha.