Opinion: Why Chembezi should step down to safeguard Malawi’s anti-corruption credibility

At a time when public confidence in state institutions is already fragile, Malawi cannot afford uncertainty at the very top of its anti-corruption machinery. The unfolding controversy surrounding Gabriel Chembezi presents not merely a personal challenge, but a defining institutional moment for the Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB). For the sake of credibility, accountability, and public trust, the Acting Director General must step aside immediately. It is grounded in a fundamental principle that institutions tasked with upholding integrity must themselves remain beyond reproach.

The ACB exists to investigate corruption impartially, without fear or favour. When its leader becomes the subject of serious allegations particularly those suggesting interference in a parliamentary process the issue transcends individual conduct. It strikes at the very legitimacy of the institution.

The allegations linked to the Amaryllis Hotel matter are deeply concerning, not only because of their substance but also because of their context. The involvement of the Public Accounts Committee (PAC), chaired by Steven Baba Malondera Kamsiyamo, raises the stakes significantly. The PAC is a cornerstone of parliamentary oversight, mandated to scrutinise public spending and ensure accountability.

[paywall]

Any perception that its work may have been influenced especially by the head of an anti-corruption body undermines democratic checks and balances. In moments like this, leadership must rise above technical defenses and embrace ethical responsibility. Stepping down is not an admission of guilt; rather, it is a demonstration of respect for the office, the institution, and the public it serves.

There is also a broader question of standards. Anti-corruption institutions derive their authority not only from law, but from public trust. That trust is built on the expectation that those who enforce accountability will themselves be held to the highest ethical standards.

Once that confidence is eroded, the damage extends far beyond a single case it weakens governance, distorts public resource management, and slows national development. Some will argue that due process must be respected and they are right. However, stepping aside does not violate due process; it strengthens it.

It allows investigations to proceed without perceived interference and ensures that any conclusions reached are credible and widely accepted. In fact, remaining in office under such circumstances may do more to undermine due process than to protect it. Equally important is the precedent this moment will set.

If public officials can remain in powerful positions while facing serious allegations of misconduct, it risks normalising a culture of impunity. Conversely, a voluntary resignation would send a clear message that leadership is accountable, and institutions matter more than individuals. Timing is critical.

Waiting to be instructed to step down suggests reluctance. Acting decisively, on the other hand, signals integrity and responsibility. True leadership is not measured by how long one holds office, but by the willingness to protect the credibility of that office even at personal cost.

[/paywall]