Suleman Chitera 
By MFN Reporter
Date: 18 October 2026
Retired Supreme Court Judge Justice Dustain Mwaungulu has drawn a clear line between Parliament’s power to investigate suspected crimes and the responsibility of law enforcement institutions to prosecute offenders, stressing that the National Assembly cannot assume the role of a court of law.
Mwaungulu says Parliament has the constitutional authority to investigate criminal activities, including corruption, and conduct forensic inquiries to uncover wrongdoing. However, such investigations do not give legislators the power to determine criminal guilt or prosecute suspects.
According to the retired judge, when parliamentary investigations uncover evidence suggesting that a crime has been committed, the matter must be referred to the appropriate executive institutions for further investigation and possible prosecution.
These institutions include the Malawi Police Service, the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP), the Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB) and financial crimes enforcement agencies.
His position highlights a fundamental principle of democratic governance: Parliament can expose suspected wrongdoing, but it cannot replace the institutions legally responsible for prosecuting crimes and determining guilt.
The distinction is particularly important in the fight against corruption, where public officials and other individuals may face allegations of abusing public resources.
While parliamentary inquiries can play a critical role in demanding accountability, uncovering financial irregularities and exposing possible abuse of office, the evidence gathered must be handled through the appropriate legal processes.
Mwaungulu’s remarks reinforce the need for accountability mechanisms that respect the separation of powers and ensure that allegations of criminal conduct are subjected to proper investigation and judicial determination.
Ultimately, the effectiveness of parliamentary investigations should not be measured only by the allegations they expose, but also by whether credible evidence is referred to the relevant authorities and acted upon in accordance with the law.
The message is clear: investigating corruption is Parliament’s responsibility, but determining criminal guilt belongs to the courts.
