DPP defends Mukhito’s rebuke of Speaker, warns against Parliament ‘behaving like police’

The Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) has moved to defend its Secretary General, Peter Mukhito, following a public disagreement with the Speaker of the National Assembly, Sameer Suleman, insisting that Mukhito’s intervention amounted to a defence of constitutional order rather than an attack on Parliament.

DPP stands by secretary general Mukhito, says Speaker crossed ‘important institutional line’

The row stems from remarks made by Suleman during a press briefing on 2 September, in which he suggested Parliament should “behave like police especially on following up public resources” – a comment the DPP says crossed an important institutional line.

‘Oversight is not the same as criminal investigation’

The party’s position rests on a clear institutional distinction. Parliament, it acknowledges, holds substantial powers to scrutinise government, summon officials, demand documents, question expenditure and hold the executive to account – powers it says must be exercised firmly and without hesitation.

But the DPP maintains that such oversight is fundamentally different from criminal investigation, a function it says belongs elsewhere: with the Malawi Police Service, which investigates crime; the Anti-Corruption Bureau, which investigates corruption; the Auditor General, who audits public finances; and the Director of Public Prosecutions, who holds prosecutorial authority.

“Parliament must hold these institutions accountable, but it should not appear to replace them,” the party said, describing this as the principle Mukhito had sought to defend.

Wide-ranging committee inquiries acknowledged as legitimate

The DPP did not dispute the legitimacy of the issues Suleman flagged for parliamentary scrutiny, which include NOCMA fuel transactions, electricity, passports, pensions, prisons, mining, agriculture and tobacco – all matters it accepts are of genuine public concern and ones Parliament has every right to interrogate.

However, the party insisted such scrutiny must be grounded in proper parliamentary procedure, clearly defined committee mandates, fairness, and respect for the institutions already entrusted with investigative responsibility – warning against any impression that state institutions are competing for authority, or that oversight is being driven by personalities or private interests.

Reference to Eastbridge controversy

The statement made specific reference to the sensitivity surrounding tobacco-related matters, noting the public debate that has already surrounded Eastbridge Estate and individuals previously associated with it.

Regardless of whether such allegations are ultimately proved or disproved, the party argued, their existence placed a heightened duty on public office holders to ensure every process was visibly impartial, with transparency and procedure “beyond doubt” and “beyond reproach.”

A call for Suleman to clarify his position

The DPP said Mukhito’s intervention was necessary precisely to prevent any blurring of institutional responsibilities, stressing that no institution becomes stronger by assuming another’s mandate, and that no democracy benefits from Parliament appearing to act simultaneously as investigator, prosecutor and overseer.

The party said it continued to support a strong and assertive Parliament, but not one that blurs constitutional boundaries – a discipline it said applied equally to ministers, MPs, law enforcement agencies and the Speaker himself.

It called on Suleman to use the opportunity available to him to clarify his position, reaffirming that Parliament’s role is to scrutinise, inquire and recommend, while referring allegations of criminality or corruption to the institutions legally mandated to investigate and prosecute them – a move it said would strengthen, rather than weaken, the Speakership.

‘Institutions respecting the law, not fighting over power’

The DPP concluded by framing its intervention as a matter of principle rather than personal dispute, stating that its concern was to protect Parliament by protecting the Constitution, and to ensure public institutions cooperate rather than compete.

“Malawi does not need institutions fighting over power. It needs institutions respecting the law, performing their mandates and working together for the people,” the party said, describing this as the position Mukhito had defended – and one on which the DPP said it remained firm.