Shaky ground: What began as concern over Vice-President Jane Ansah’s costly overseas trip has evolved into
an indictment of executive incoherence and weakened accountability. Photo: Government of Malawi
As Malawi seeks emergency financial assistance abroad, allegations of high-cost discretionary spending by Malawi’s Vice-President Dr Jane Ansah are testing the country’s governance credibility at home and with international partners.
In the markets of Lilongwe, the signs of economic distress are clear. Vendors sell roasted maize and second-hand clothing while the cost of living continues to rise beyond the reach of most households.
Malawi, a country long dependent on donor support, is once again confronting the limits of an economy under severe strain.
Against this backdrop, Finance Minister Joseph Mwanamvekha has been seeking emergency financial and food assistance from Middle Eastern partners, including Qatar.
The efforts come as the country struggles with food insecurity, foreign exchange shortages and a rapidly depreciating kwacha.
Allegations surrounded a proposed high-cost overseas trip by a senior government official have sparked public debate. Ansah is back now, having left the country in December 2025 amid controversy
Ansah’s return to Malawi on 15 January 2026, has failed to calm what has become the most damaging governance controversy of President Peter Mutharika’s administration, exposing a government unable to speak with one voice and a widening gulf between official austerity rhetoric and elite privilege.
What began as public concern over a costly overseas trip has evolved into a broader indictment of executive incoherence, weakened accountability and the erosion of public trust at a time of deep economic distress.
Ansah arrived at Kamuzu International Airport after a 20-day absence, described as a private visit to Nottingham to mark her husband’s 80th birthday. But questions surrounding how the trip was financed, who authorised it and whether the vice-president acted against direct presidential instruction have proved far more consequential than the journey.
At the heart of the controversy lies contradictory official statements that suggest either deliberate obfuscation or a breakdown in communication at the centre of government. Leaked official documents, later acknowledged as authentic, indicated that the trip was budgeted at about US$1.09 million in public funds, covering air travel, accommodation, allowances, security and incidentals.
When pressed, the vice-president’s office did not dispute the documents.
The government narrative then shifted, with a spokesperson stating that about $97 000 of taxpayer money had been approved for the visit, confirming public funding for what had been described as a private trip. Mutharika later intervened to declare that the vice-president had paid for the trip personally, contradicting his own spokesperson and plunging the administration into an irreconcilable credibility crisis.
Malawi’s economic position remains fragile. The International Monetary Fund has paused its engagement with the country, citing concerns over fiscal slippages and weak expenditure controls.
Foreign exchange shortages have pushed up the cost of imported goods, while erratic weather linked to climate change has damaged food production.
The World Bank says more than 70% of Malawians live below the international poverty line.
In this context, even the perception of lavish, state-funded travel for private purposes carries serious consequences.
As one governance analyst in Lilongwe noted privately: “The issue is not only legality but credibility. You cannot argue there is no money for essential services while … justifying premium spending on non-essential travel.”
The controversy also revives painful memories of the 2013 Cashgate scandal, when weaknesses in public financial management allowed large-scale theft from government accounts. Although reforms followed, donor confidence has remained fragile.
This issue matters domestically and internationally. Malawi depends on external assistance, particularly from Western donors that fund health, education and social protection programmes.
The optics of officials seeking emergency aid abroad while approving high-cost discretionary spending at home risk damaging the relationships the country relies on.
There are also implications for donor governments. Civil society groups have questioned whether host countries, including the UK, conduct sufficient due diligence when issuing visas for delegations whose trips might blur the line between official business and private activity.
If donor funds are fungible, as economists often note, weak oversight can allow domestic resources to be diverted away from public priorities. For countries like Malawi, whose development has long depended on international solidarity, this erosion of trust is deeply damaging.
The opportunity cost of MK2 billion is stark. In rural districts such as Nsanje, which suffer repeated flooding and chronic underinvestment, the amount could fund water infrastructure, agricultural inputs or essential health supplies.
Instead, citizens are repeatedly told that fiscal realities leave no room for such investments.
“We are told to tighten our belts,” said a farmer near Blantyre in a radio interview. “But it seems some belts are never tightened.”
This frustration is not unique to Malawi. Across Southern Africa, public trust in state institutions is under pressure. From currency instability in Zimbabwe to the lingering effects of state capture in South Africa, the region continues to struggle with political systems that often blur the line between public office and private entitlement.
For Malawi, the stakes are especially high. Governance failures have contributed to a steady outflow of skilled professionals, doctors, engineers and teachers, to countries offering greater institutional stability. Each departure is not only a personal choice but also a reflection of declining confidence in leadership.
Reports suggest that the alleged travel plans were processed through the Office of the President and Cabinet, placing responsibility at the highest level of government.
Failure to act decisively, by enforcing clear rules on public spending and transparency, would further damage Malawi’s credibility with citizens and international partners.
Aid without accountability cannot sustain development. If Malawi is to move beyond crisis management, it must show that austerity applies to everyone, especially those in power.
Collins Mtika is a veteran journalist and the Mail & Guardian’s special correspondent in Mzuzu, Malawi. He is also the director of Centre for Investigative Journalism Malawi.