Broken assets law chokes Malawi's corruption fight

While public officials in Malawi can declare their assets in compliance with the law that was aimed at fighting corruption, there seems to be no real gain for the nation as the institution mandated to verify those declarations is perpetually deprived of funding. By Mercy Matonga: The law requires public officers to declare their wealth. Malawi passed the law in 2013 – and it took effect in 2014. The aim was to curb corruption in public service through making a certain category of public officials showing the nation what assets they have. The thinking was that when the public knows what these officials have, it would be easy for the system to crack on illicit enrichment, enforce integrity in the public service and enhance public confidence in their government. More than 10 years after the law got into effect, nothing much has happened other than some public officials choosing to file forms of what they have. Whether what they declare is real, Malawians have nearly no way of knowing, reducing the law to no more than a scarecrow that has also long lost its potency. All this is partly because the institution that the law tasked to confirm what politicians and other public officials declare, the Office of the Director of Public Officers' Declarations (Odpod), is perpetually suffering from poor funding. This financial year, it has been allocated K1.9 billion against an ideal K4.3 billion. The best it does now is random sampling to determine whose declarations should be scrutinised, it said. The office currently uses a manual system where public officers submit hard copies and officers take the arduous task of transferring the information into the system, said Odpod Executive Director Michael Chiusiwa, during the launch of the office's strategic plan in June this year. He said the office has 26 members of staff and 21 officers to handle almost 18,000 submissions. The Public Officers (Declaration of Assets, Liabilities and Business Interests) Act compels officials to declare their assets within the first three months of the year or after occupying a listed position. Responding to our questions this week on the general performance of this requirement, Odpod's spokesperson Stella Kaliati, said not all public officials required by the law to declare what they have did so in the 2025-2026 financial year. She also said the office has not yet completed assessments on the 2025-2026 submissions to check which official complied and which one did not. "The compliance verification exercise is in progress and we have not yet come up with the final list of those who did not comply," Kaliati said. Beyond checking who has declared or now, the law mandates Odpod to verify the assets declared by all public officers required by the law to declare assets. However, lack of enough funds and staff limits its ability to deliver on this mandate. "For that reason, the Odpod is incapacitated to fully conduct the verification exercise as the law requires," she said. "As of now, the verification exercise is yet to be done." The constrained operation of the Odpod is rooted in the weaknesses of the very law that established it and guides how it functions, said National Anti- Corruption Alliance's Micheal Kaiyatsa. "The law has not adequately equipped the office with the necessary powers, tools and resources to effectively ensure [public officials'] compliance with the asset declaration regime," Kaiyatsa said. Section 18 of the Act, among other provisions, calls for the dismissal of listed officers who, "without reasonable cause", fail to submit the required declarations. For elected officials, this could mean their seats being declared vacant and a ban from participating in subsequent elections. In the more than 10 years that the law has been in existence, no public official on who the law applies is publicly known to have been sanctioned – through suspension, dismissal or ban – for not complying with it, despite evidence of many not acting according to it.

WIRE — While public officials in Malawi can declare their assets in compliance with the law that was aimed at fighting corruption, there seems to be no real gain for the nation as the institution mandated to verify those declarations is perpetually deprived of funding. By Mercy Matonga: The law requires public officers to declare their wealth. Malawi passed the law in 2013 – and it took effect in 2014. The aim was to curb corruption in public service through making a certain category of public officials showing the nation what assets they have. The thinking was that when the public knows what these officials have, it would be easy for the system to crack on illicit enrichment, enforce integrity in the public service and enhance public confidence in their government. More than 10 years after the law got into effect, nothing much has happened other than some public officials choosing to file forms of what they have. Whether what they declare is real, Malawians have nearly no way of knowing, reducing the law to no more than a scarecrow that has also long lost its potency. All this is partly because the institution that the law tasked to confirm what politicians and other public officials declare, the Office of the Director of Public Officers' Declarations (Odpod), is perpetually suffering from poor funding. This financial year, it has been allocated K1.9 billion against an ideal K4.3 billion. The best it does now is random sampling to determine whose declarations should be scrutinised, it said. The office currently uses a manual system where public officers submit hard copies and officers take the arduous task of transferring the information into the system, said Odpod Executive Director Michael Chiusiwa, during the launch of the office's strategic plan in June this year. He said the office has 26 members of staff and 21 officers to handle almost 18,000 submissions. The Public Officers (Declaration of Assets, Liabilities and Business Interests) Act compels officials to declare their assets within the first three months of the year or after occupying a listed position. Responding to our questions this week on the general performance of this requirement, Odpod's spokesperson Stella Kaliati, said not all public officials required by the law to declare what they have did so in the 2025-2026 financial year. She also said the office has not yet completed assessments on the 2025-2026 submissions to check which official complied and which one did not. "The compliance verification exercise is in progress and we have not yet come up with the final list of those who did not comply," Kaliati said. Beyond checking who has declared or now, the law mandates Odpod to verify the assets declared by all public officers required by the law to declare assets. However, lack of enough funds and staff limits its ability to deliver on this mandate. "For that reason, the Odpod is incapacitated to fully conduct the verification exercise as the law requires," she said. "As of now, the verification exercise is yet to be done." The constrained operation of the Odpod is rooted in the weaknesses of the very law that established it and guides how it functions, said National Anti- Corruption Alliance's Micheal Kaiyatsa. "The law has not adequately equipped the office with the necessary powers, tools and resources to effectively ensure [public officials'] compliance with the asset declaration regime," Kaiyatsa said. Section 18 of the Act, among other provisions, calls for the dismissal of listed officers who, "without reasonable cause", fail to submit the required declarations. For elected officials, this could mean their seats being declared vacant and a ban from participating in subsequent elections. In the more than 10 years that the law has been in existence, no public official on who the law applies is publicly known to have been sanctioned – through suspension, dismissal or ban – for not complying with it, despite evidence of many not acting according to it.

"We aggregate wires to encourage regional discovery, sending readers directly back to the original source to explore full coverage."

This is a normalized overview of the breaking feed event. The complete, official release detailing all points, background context, and statements remains hosted by the original publisher.