Why are some Media Houses dismissing Steaming as a remedy for Coronavirus without showing scientific evidence of it’s lack of efficacy?

So some Media houses are this morning trying to denigrate and dismiss Steaming (which some ethnic minorities have been doing to try and protect themselves from coronavirus). They say it is a fake remedy, but critically do not provide any evidence as to its lack of efficacy…?

And yet there’s been at least one small study which shows steaming as a “promising” remedy?

So here’s my question, shouldn’t Scientists first undertake controlled studies and clinical trials regarding whether Steaming has an effect on the virus or not, and if it has to what extent, before the media rushes off to bully, denigrate and dismiss anybody who recommends steaming as a remedy? Just asking‚Ķūüßź

Listening to all the attacks, it seems to me that anything that’s not a Vaccine is being quickly dismissed and attacked without even first checking carefully, in a scientific study, whether it could have some efficacy or not. Which is concerning, to say the least.

Isn’t it the case that if you don’t try and check alternatives to the Vaccine, then you can’t possibly conclude whether something else works or not?!

Surely, if Pharmaceuticals go through the trouble of checking Vaccines (which are important and have a good history of effectiveness), then surely it shouldn’t be such a big deal to trial out simpler and cheaper home remedies? Especially when Vaccine supplies are in high demand, and some people unfortunately won’t be able to get them in time.

And steaming is by no means the only home remedy. There are claims that Blue gum leaves, ginger, garlic and other foods with anti-inflammatory properties are also effective, at least in preventing the build-up of mucus in the lungs.

I think at such a difficult time we should all be open-minded as to what other remedies could be effective against COVID-19. Which means it should be procedural for certain herbal or home remedies to be trialed for conclusive evidence as to their efficacy, before dismissing them.

This is important for poor countries which need alternatives until a time that they have procured enough Vaccine supplies, since they may not get all the Vaccine supplies they need in time, especially in light of the Vaccine shortages.

Finally, let me be clear that I’m not referring to absurd and ridiculous or otherwise scientifically illiterate herbal or home remedies which have been suggested in the past, like chlorine or disinfectant, which are dangerous to human health and could put people’s lives in danger.

FAIR

FairAlthough American, this media watch group is inspirational:

What’s FAIR?

FAIR, the national media watch group, has been offering well-documented criticism of media bias and censorship since 1986. We work to invigorate the First Amendment by advocating for greater diversity in the press and by scrutinizing media practices that marginalize public interest, minority and dissenting viewpoints. As an anti-censorship organization, we expose neglected news stories and defend working journalists when they are muzzled. As a progressive group, FAIR believes that structural reform is ultimately needed to break up the dominant media conglomerates, establish independent public broadcasting and promote strong non-profit sources of information.

More here

Who’s idea was the Cash-filled Envelope?

Last Tuesday something curious happened at Sanjika Palace. Some Journalists and media personalities were invited to dine with president Peter Mutharika, and sometime towards the end of the dinner, blue envelopes purported to contain a booklet outlining the president’s vision on media freedoms were handed out to the guests. They opened them, and were surprised to find a pen, a blank notepad, and K50,000 (about US$100 ) in cash contained inside another envelope.

Then began the drama. What was the money for? Isn’t this bribery? Wouldn’t accepting it open a conflict of interest? Why were they not told about the gift prior to the dinner? Or when the invitations came? Why did the minister of information,Kondwani Nankhumwa, lie to them claiming the envelopes contained the president’s vision on press freedoms? Should they accept it? Can they return it there and then without offending the president? Should it be declared to their newsrooms, let alone to the public? Also, why in cash, why not a cheque – why does the whole thing appear like some secret thing?

In a poor country such as Malawi, I can imagine some of the journalists had a difficult moral judgement to make.

Some of the journalists decided to keep the money, including Raphael Tenthani, the BBC correspondent (they claim they will donate it to charity – to pay towards the medical bills of another journalist, Limbani Moya, who is undergoing a kidney transplant in India). One or two returned the envelopes that same night, but as can be imagined, the whole thing looked questionable. Among the journalists who kept the envelopes were some who decided that if they returned the money, palace officials would just share it amongst themselves, so they chose to keep the money and donate it to charity.

Over the last couple of days people on social media have debated the issue vigorously, claiming it was bribery, dismissing Peter Mutharika as corrupt. Comparing him to Joyce Banda and Bakili Muluzi. Very strong comments about the competency of the presidency have been made. Prominent Malawian legal practitioner and lawyer, Professor Dr. Danwood Chirwa who is a head of law at the University of Cape Town called the handing out of the envelopes crimes under Section 25B and 26 of the Corrupt Practices Act, and urged the journalists to return the money.

However, the question remains, who came up with such a silly idea?

Who was it that said, you know what we should do, let’s get some journalists together at Sanjika palace, lets give them some food and drinks, the president will make a speech, and answer some questions from the floor, then towards the end of the dinner, we’ll give the journalists $100 each? Who came up with that idea?

Although I doubt it, I’m inclined to ask: was it the president’s idea?

Or was it the minister of Information’s plan? Since he was willing to lie about it, maybe it was his idea? Was it concocted by one of the president’s advisers? If so the fool should be fired forthwith, because the gimmick wasn’t clever. It was stupid, and may have violated the law.

If he won’t be fired, then for his/her own self-respect, the architect of this scandal needs to quietly resign. The Mutharika government must stop churning out flawed gimmicks, as the ones we saw in the previous administration. These are the kind of things which give African politics, and African politicians a bad name. How can Malawi ever develop when we hold onto questionable practices, and when we are willing to violate our own laws, even at the highest office?

Further, what was the whole thing meant to achieve? Seriously, did Sanjika Palace really think that in the current polarised political environment that the issue wouldnt come out?

Remember how quickly Joyce Banda slipped down the route of bad decisions, like allowing the 100 days celebration to proceed at the expense of Independence Day celebrations? And how from there onwards it was all a list of disasters and flawed decisions. The massive devaluation of the Malawi Kwacha, South Korea Labour scandal, Jetgate, Madaonnagate, Cashgate…

Mr President, do yourself a big favour, please don’t go down that route.

 

Press Reform: Time to create an independent media watchdog for Media Organisations in Malawi

projector-64149_1280Who regulates the Media in Malawi?

Who is it that will confront  the many dodgy online (and some who are not online) publications that have been known to create false stories against public figures out of no-where? What code of conduct do they subscribe to? Who is it that they are answerable to? Are their writers trained journalists conversant with established journalistic inquiry methods? What standards do they observe when they go about crafting their menace? When they concoct their heresies Рwho can chastise them? Who gets to rebuke those who push out false material into the unsuspecting public in an everything-goes fashion?

I’ve not suddenly become pro-establishment. I’ve not suddenly woken up today and dreamily decided to attack press freedoms.What I’m asking after a long contemplation of the news coming out of Malawi News portals in recent months is what exactly constitutes press freedoms? Can writing a story that one knows is false, that one knows didn’t happen, or that one suspects couldn’t be true, all in an attempt to create a stir, or appease a financier, does that qualify as ‘press freedoms’?

The questions above need to be carefully considered for a good number of reasons.

Firstly, as many Malawians who follow the news will know, we have been misled quite a number of times by the news agencies, and various publications, over issues from president Joyce Banda’s dealings in office, to¬† the current president’s sexuality. It’s simply not fair, or sustainable, or even professional for such kind of rubbish-pit chicanery to continue to splatter the media. Think false or twisted stories against some Malawians, including Jessie Kabwila, and much recently against Thoko Banda and many others.

Those who write these stories will obviously have justifications for creating them. Any fool can do that. It takes a real professional to independently verify a story before presenting it as ‘fact’. It takes a real professional to separate fact from allegation. What is also interesting, especially in online news portals, is that in regards to most such false stories, as soon as the authors are confronted, they quickly backtrack and delete these stories – issuing an apology. But only after thousands of readers have already accessed the fabrications. After the damage has already been done. Often than not, the story leaves behind a record, a trail which can be used to unfairly taint a character – many years later.

It’s simply not sustainable for Malawi’s media organisations to operate like this. There has to be some basic standards and fair reporting.

Secondly, some of the Media organisations are owned by politicians. Or by people with direct affiliations to political parties and politicians. So, what they publish is invariably going to favour their patrons. Which is not always good, especially if they begin to unfairly attack other politicians or groups opposed to their patrons. Further, there are some media organisations in Malawi, which in an attempt to bring down an opponent will publish material that is false, or will twist facts to present a sensationalist picture that is not entirely true. One that does injustice to the individual concerned. Obviously this is not right, and you can not use ‘freedom of speech’ to justify such behaviour.

‘What about MACRA (Malawi Communications Regulatory Authority)?’ I hear you say. Can’t they regulate this environment? Isn’t that their job? Well, they have been described as ‘poorly managed‘ by the 2006-2007 Media Sustainability Index Report. They have been accused of pro government bias. In my view, MACRA is overburdened by other things. Their organisation is already stretched in dealing with issues such as tax evasion by telecom companies, unauthorised broadcasting by the same, and other tedious issues. They are not ideally equipped to scrutinise as many media outfits in the land to ensure that what is published is, firstly true, and secondly in line with the type of code of conduct I hereby propose. Further, if MACRA went about demanding integrity and quashing rumour and propaganda in online publications, such behaviour is likely to come across as anti-democratic, and may even qualify as censorship, simply because MACRA is a government institution.

‘You are advocating press Censorship’ I hear another say.

And why would I do that? If you’ve read this blog for any length of time, you’ll realise that I’m quite liberal in my thinking. I often publish material on accountability, fair and even distribution of wealth, anti-corruption and such themes. Why then would I suddenly become a chum of the powers that be, and advocate censorship? There’s a difference between on one hand propriety and abiding by professional standards that aim to preserve integrity and professionalism, and on the other hand censorship. Asking that publications must verify the truthfulness of a story before publishing it is not censorship. Instead, it is ensuring that fabricated rumour and other gooble-de-gook doesn’t pass-off as news. At its bare bones, I’m advocating a quality check.

I believe what the European Court of Human rights once said (Castells vs Spain): “Freedom of the press affords the public one of the best means of discovering and forming an opinion of the ideas and attitudes of their political leaders. In particular, it gives politicians the opportunity to reflect and comment on the preoccupations of public opinion; it thus enables everyone to participate in the free political debate which is at the very core of the concept of a democratic society”

Words which echoed Theodore Roosevelt, when he said ” Free Speech exercised both individually and through a free press, is a necessity in any country where people are themselves free.”

But this free political debate only works if the public opinion or the ‘free speech’ that is published is in fact true. It can’t work if the stories are false or fabricated with the intention of character assassination or otherwise.

What about the recent E-bill?

Well, it doesn’t go far enough, and critically it focusses the power in the hands of the government via MACRA, the regulator, which as I said above is restrictive. Like the current framework, it is not sufficient. What is needed instead is a framework run by an independent body with neither political nor neopatrimonial interests.

So what form will this new regulator take?

Well, assuming that we agree that the current state of play is not sustainable, we will probably also agree that self-regulation is not an option. Similarly, if  the likes of MACRA have been accused of interfering, or being pressured by the state to interfere with the media, then they are probably not the ones to front this.

Thus, taking a simplistic view, what I propose is a Malawi Media Monitoring Commission that will have a parliament sanctioned Professional Charter and Code of Conduct. Its role will be to uphold standards in the media and communications industry.

It’s not going to be that simple. Public Affairs Committee (PAC) will need to take an active role in formulating that code of conduct, and a public consultation will need to be launched, to ensure that views of ordinary Malawians are taken into account, and that the executive does not monopolise or influence the organisation.

Why all the hassle?

Because the role of a free press is to hold the government to account. It should not work the other way round. And you cannot have a free press if there are few or no standards being observed, or if the government attempts to stifle or gag the press via instruments such as the E-bill. Leaving the formulation of this important aspect of democracy to parliament alone can compromise its independence and thereby press freedoms.

The Commission will be led by a commissioner on a 2 year contract, appointed by a committee including members of PAC and some parliamentarians. In order to minimise costs, the office of the commissioner will have no more than 10 fully paid members of staff, whose duties will include advocating the merits of a free impartial and professional press, sensitizing the public about the code of conduct of the watchdog, running seminars for journalists and members of the media, investigating complaints, dealing with reports of false and fabricated stories, investigating false stories, imposing fines against unscrupulous media outlets, enforcement, and in particularly acute cases, proposing the prosecution of media organisations or their employees. It will operate separately from MACRA, although it will need to work with the police to ensure that the public’s faith in the regulatory structure is restored. Further, MACRA will be obliged to pass on any complaints of unfair reporting they receive to the new commission.

To me this sounds like a more functional and independent system with much better prospects of creating a media that is responsible, and that puts leaders to task, than the current framework. In any case, it prevents concentration of power in the arms of the executive or legislature.

Strengthening Civil Society Organisations in Malawi

CSO-imageWhen a marriage has hit the rocks, one of the most common remedies in the modern world is for the couple to go for marital counselling. To visit a marriage counsellor. It doesn’t always help, and sometimes a matrimonial union will come to a bitter end no matter how many hours of counselling you throw at it. The dynamics of that marriage were such that it was eventually going to fail.

In Malawi, people go to what are known as Ankhoswe (essentially the marriage guardian) to resolve marital conflicts. In traditional Malawian society, there is a special type of principle whereby it is not sufficient for two people to be married without consulting the ankhoswe. For a marriage to be recognsised as valid, ankhoswes from both sides of the union must approve the marriage. Absence of the ankhoswe renders the marriage invalid, and when problems arise in the marriage, the ankhoswe is one of the very first people to be informed. In this case, the ankhoswe takes the role of counsellor or mediator. 

But the whole point of counselling, the whole point of a mediator, is to bring in an element of the outsider’s view. An independent viewpoint from a mature person, an expert at resolving conflicts who can try and bridge the gap; to knock in some sense, ask the awkward questions, to rebuke, and if necessary, challenge any irrational or stupid behaviour.¬†

There’s a parallel in Politics, in that in most democracies, there are times when the ‘marriage’ between the powers that be (the government), and the people, requires a mediator. There are times when a counsellor is essential. In constitutional democracies, this job is often one for the courts to undertake, but not necessarily its preserve. Because by virtue of courts being manned by judges¬† – flesh and blood who have career aspirations, political persuasions, favourites and so forth – it is not always the case that courts are independent or impartial.

Religious organisations, civil society organisations, the Media and other commentators form a group that may occasionally take up this mantle, to sing praises where such is due, to advise when necessary, to point out deficiencies in public policy, to ask the difficult questions, to lobby the government towards a particular cause, but also to criticise when wrongdoing has occured. Like the courts, there are limits to the extent to which their intervention is effective, although in some ways it can be a lot more effective in orchestrating change than the courts – since this group tends to be a lot closer to the people, and are thus more influential. Especially when they are united in a single voice. Further, like the courts, they too can be influenced (sometimes negatively) by the government, which can have negative consequences on the people. But unlike courts, the bigger player in a political marriage may not always be willing to listen to Ciivil Society Organisations.

Which presents a problem, because for this marriage to work (at least up to the next election), the bigger party to the marriage must be willing to listen to the grievances of the smaller party. The bigger party must make do on its promises. Otherwise, all hell can break loose and the government can find itself on the defensive, doing irrational and illegal things in an attempt to survive. Essentially forcing itself onto the people. A rape of sorts. Arguably, this is what happened during the last days of Bingu Wa Mutharika’s reign.

In Malawi, we are at a stage in our country’s political development where civil society is beginning to have an increasing influence in politics. This was particularly evident not only during the reign of Bingu Wa Mutharika, but also during Joyce Banda’s tenure. It was the media, the church and civil society who rebuked Bingu over his dictatorial pronouncements – hand in hand with the donor community. They were at Bingu’s throat over Mota Engil. And Mulli. It was this group which held Joyce Banda to task over the asset declaration issue, over¬†Jetgate (and shady deals with defence contractors), Cashgate, the fleet of vehicles, even over the excessive travelling of Joyce Banda. And eventually, when May 2014 came, we all know what happened.

Today, we have a new DPP government, which I’m told is trying to complete the job they began under Bingu Wa Mutharika. In governing, it would be wise for this DPP government not to over-believe its own hype. There is need for mediators, even though there may appear to be no problems at the moment. Still, some people on the ground say that the economy in Malawi is sluggish, and things are slow. So while the environment is that of calm, it’s not exactly hunky dory. Poverty is still widespread in Malawi and money is not yet growing on trees; the land hasn’t yet morphed into a nirvana flowing with milk and honey, the union hasn’t quite reached that coveted state of marital bliss we are all looking forward to.

Which is why I strongly believe that more must be done to strengthen civil society organisations in Malawi, in terms of ensuring they are well resourced and that they can do their job without fear of intimidation. That they can function without political interference. More has to be done in making sure that they are relevant in addressing the issues affecting peoples lives. It’s important, it’s good for our country’s development.

But who’s task is it to strengthen Civil Society Organisations?

How about every Malawian’s task?

The government has an interest for their governance to proceed as smoothly as is possible, so they have to be proactive in helping civil society stand on its own feet – to be not only a check of power, but to communicate to the people the achievements, the process of fulfilling the pre-election promises.

The people have an interest for their government to be accountable, so that the government delivers on what it promised, so they too must be proactive in helping improve Civil society organisations – to ensure that CSO’s monitor the government. This is important so that the government meets the people’s demands. After all, most past government in Malawi have abused the people’s trust and plundered public resources at will. Surely, this impunity has to come to an end at some point.

Donors too have an interest in preserving and growing democracy, and in advancing the aims of the countries from which they come. For this to be possible, the political landscape has to be stable, and for that to happen, the government of the day has to be accountable, and effective (otherwise this happanes). Thus, donors are stakeholders who have an interest in Malawi having a strong and independent CSO sector.

And why should Civil Society Organisations be strong?

Because doing so is a necessary ingredient in creation of a strong democracy. The media can be bought by any fool with deep pockets. Similarly, the courts can be corrupted by power-hungry leaders, religious organisations can be partial (disowning clergy folk who diverge from their stance), the police force can be incapacitated by political implants (the likes of people like Bophani), the public broadcaster can be forced to favouritism, even a general of a country’s army can take sides.

But not all Civil Society Organisations can be compromised (even though some will falter at the sight of a hefty bribe). And that is precisely why they need to be strong.

Time to give way to the Youth Mr Mugabe

ZANU-PF does not sound like the name of a political party. No, instead ZANU-PF sounds like the name of a machine gun, some lethal semi-automatic you’d find lying next to an AK-47, or next to an RPG-7. And that appeal in itself is one reason why ZANU-PF is popular in Zimbabwe, because unlike what some international media houses would like people living outside Zimbabwe to believe, ZANU-PF continues to be hugely popular within Zimbabwe.

Luckily I have friends in Zimbabwe, who inform me of the going-ons on the ground. Through them, I’m able to know some of the things BBC, or CNN or SKY or any of the large media houses are not keen to publish, I’m able to separate fact from fiction. I’m also able to know the extent to which the atrocities and corruption attributed to ZANU-PF are true, which many are.

In the past I have been asked to write an article on Zimbabwe, but I’ve not had time or resources to do so. Thus, I’ve left that job to others who are better resourced to illuminate readers of this blog over what really happened in Zimbabwe. However, what I could say is that as Mugabe has now hit 90, ZANU-PF must start to seriously think about life after Mugabe (if they haven’t already).

And this is not an attack on Mugabe or ZANU-PF. Instead, Zimbabwe is a country of¬† 13 million people, so surely Zimbabwe belongs to all Zimbabweans on an equal basis (and not just ZANU-PF supporters or Robert Mugabe). This means that it’s a fallacy to assume that there is nobody better placed to rule Zimbabwe, than Robert Mugabe. Mugabe has achieved a lot of commendable things in his lifetime (and yes there’s a lot of bad things people have accused him of – just as others accused Thatcher, Churchill of even Dubya of some terrible things). But there are other capable people who count Zimbabwe as their homeland, others who could successfully (not without faults) rule Zimbabwe. That’s a fact.

I’d say this again, any day: Mugabe must now take measures to pass the presidency over to someone else, or to a group of people – say in the same manner as China is run. Especially with the state of his health, which under any lens is not perfect. Africa cannot develop when we continue to have old and stubborn leaders who do not want to step down. That’s another fact.

Planned transition is important not only to maintain the progress Zimbabwe has made in recent years (despite the sanctions)  but also to ensure that young Zimbabweans Рwho are up to date and better informed with global going-ons than their elder folk Рare not deprived of the opportunity of participating in the affairs of their own country.

I’ll say this also. Land reform (Peaceful land reform – not violent clashes in which people lost their lives) was necessary for better income distribution across Zimbabwe. You can’t have economic development or get rid of poverty if huge swathes of land are held in the possession of a minority, while the landless and indigenous majority struggle to get by and are victims of poverty. That picture, be it in Zimbabwe, South Africa, or indeed anywhere else will never be right, no matter how well it is glossed over or self-righteously justified.

Anyhow, while most Africans have some admiration for the man Mugabe, if young people are not allowed to participate in politics in Zimbabwe, it will be doubly difficult for Zimbabwe, and Africa in general to ‘catch up’ with the international community’ and Zimbabwe may end up as one of those countries which once the ‘strongman’ had died, found itself gripped in the midst of a chaotic revolution, as different factions wrestled for power. Which would weaken Zimbabwe’s economy even further.

Mugabe would be wise to map a power sharing deal with the opposition now, while he is still alive, and while he can supervise it, to see what works and what doesn’t work. This would be better than to selfishly leave it up to chance, for whoever comes after him to sort out whatever mess should ensue once he is no longer in charge. Or no longer around.

UnlockedMoneySafe: Investigating Cashgate – the twists and turns of corruption in Malawi

I feel sorry for the forensic investigators probing into Cashgate. Each day brings with it a new revelation, scheme or scandal, each day new drama. If it wasn’t the fact that government funds belonging to a country which is regarded as a poor country have been misused, I’d say stop wasting resources on an investigation which you will never fully get to the bottom of. If it wasn’t the fact that it is innocent citizens of a beautiful country who stand to lose out, I’d say give up.

Today another report emerges that the secretary of the Catholic Commission for Justice and Peace in Lilongwe, Peter Chinoko (Peter Chinoko is the brave soul who has been attacked and even sustained a fracture in the past for helping organise the July 20 protests against Bingu Wa Mutharika. The same regime that was oppressive against Joyce Banda. When he speaks we must listen) has said that the current president of Malawi, Joyce Banda is implicated in the cashgate scandal.

According to the news report, this is because she organised an inner circle designed to channel funds, following her complaints that she was spending too much of her own money on the PP party. Interestingly, the name of a company I have heard before associated with Joyce Banda (which has been mentioned by several people following the scandal much closely) has popped up yet again:  Veventis Risk Solutions, headquartered in Mayfair, London.

cashgate-1

It’s been suggested before by various people and organisations that there have been attempts to obstruct the investigation into the cashgate crisis in Malawi, including employment of delay tactics, let alone a PR sanitizing machine.

But what concerns me is that with so much speculation on social media, it’s becoming harder to distinguish between credible news and misinformation, more so since the PR machine which is attempting to distort the news, keeps on providing what I consider to be false information. For example, Nyasa times, one of the most popular online Malawian news sources is yet to carry the above allegation??

So, if one reads something online, on social media, as we saw with the revelations of Mphwiyo shooting, there is every chance that the tenets of truth are contained within a pile of speculation, or vice versa, with some embellishments for full effect. Personally, such information, although probably not strictly journalistic, could provide leads to the forensic investigators, on who to interview next.

Anyhow, if you are not familiar with the latest news headlines, see below:

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

The troubles facing Joyce Banda are many. Recently, a journalist questioned the statements made by the Malawian President regarding what she reported the IMF to have said about her government’s leadership.

Yet all along, the president has maintained that she is innocent and not a part of the officials who have been embezzling money from the government. In a recent statement to Al jazeera when asked if she has failed with regard to fighting corruption, she said:

“No, we have not failed. I don’t know if you know that this cancer has been going on for 15 years and the biggest tragedy in the fight against corruption is covering up. I think the best one can do as a leader is that once you discover then you need to take advantage of the opportunity.”

Which is interesting because not too long ago an article emerged on Afrol News website (titled Malawi loses US$ 40 million in corruption ) in which Joyce Banda’s own company was alleged to have been paid for work it did not undertake. In particular the article says:

The document alleges that the government has not yet recovered kwacha 13 million in a case where DPP Secretary-General Joyce Banda is said to have been awarded a kwacha 26 million contract to construct a transit depot by ADMARC, the national food security agency, in 2002 when she was a Board Member. The document further reveals that Ms Banda allegedly pocketed kwacha 13 million in advances before commencement of the work.

Unless the document is a fraud, doesn’t this compromise her position even further?

Only time will tell where this goes next, but I appeal to donors and the forensic investigators not to leave any stone unturned. All these organisations whose names have been popping up all over the place should be questioned. There is a shameless and cancerous culture of impunity in Malawian politics that should be ended. Malawi’s money is definitely not safe with the current breed of leadership.

From the politics of chameleons, neatly chronicled by another activist here, to jealousies and a pull-down culture, there is a lot that needs fixing in Malawi. The question is, are Malawians up for the challenge?

Similar links