Malawi Freedom Network 
By Malawi Freedom Network
10 September 2026
The growing confrontation between the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) and Parliament over parliamentary oversight is raising a fundamental question among Malawians: What message is the ruling party sending to the people who elected it?
Parliament exists to represent Malawians, make laws and, critically, scrutinise the Executive and public use of national resources. The DPP itself acknowledges in its 2025 manifesto that Parliament has a broad mandate to hold the Executive and other actors to account.
Yet the party has publicly challenged Speaker Sameer Suleman over Parliament’s decision to scrutinise a number of issues of national importance. The DPP Secretary General, Peter Mukhito, has argued that oversight should not cross into the functions of investigative and law-enforcement institutions.
That argument may deserve legal and constitutional debate. But there is a bigger political question.
Why should a government fear questions if it has nothing to hide?
Malawians did not elect the DPP to silence Parliament. They elected a government to govern—and Parliament to hold government accountable.
The current dispute therefore risks creating an unfortunate perception that party loyalty is being placed above institutional accountability.
The High Court has temporarily halted the parliamentary inquiries, but that does not mean the Speaker has been finally declared unlawful. The constitutional questions remain subject to judicial determination.
This is where the DPP must be careful.
A ruling party should not send a message that Parliament is welcome only when it asks comfortable questions. Real democracy begins when Parliament asks the difficult questions—the questions that powerful people may not want to hear.
The issues before Parliament, including public finances, energy, NOCMA, pensions, passports and other public services, directly affect ordinary Malawians. The DPP itself has acknowledged that these are legitimate matters of public concern deserving scrutiny.
So the answer should not be to weaken oversight.
If Parliament gets something wrong, the government can provide documents, explanations and evidence. If a committee exceeds its legal mandate, the courts can intervene. If criminal conduct is suspected, competent investigative agencies can act.
But stopping scrutiny altogether sends the wrong political message.
The DPP should remember that political power is temporary, while democratic institutions must survive every administration.
Today it is the DPP in government. Tomorrow another party may occupy those same offices.
The question, therefore, is not whether Speaker Suleman is right or wrong on every issue.
The bigger question is whether Malawi wants a Parliament that can independently ask questions without fear or political pressure.
Malawians deserve answers—not silence.
They deserve accountability—not intimidation.
They deserve institutions that check one another—not institutions afraid to check those in power.
If the DPP truly believes in accountability, as its own manifesto states, then the party should have confidence in Parliament doing its constitutional job.
The strongest government is not the government that blocks questions. It is the government confident enough to answer them.
That is the message Malawians are waiting to hear from the DPP.
Read also: Associate Professor Ngeyi Ruth Kanyongolo laid to rest
Read also: Chihana Dismisses Claims of AFORD Pulling Out of Alliance Talks
Read also: UTM and MCP Members Express Disappointment Over Unfulfilled Promises
