AG Mbeta, MEC differ on probe over audit queries

Differences between Attorney General Frank Mbeta and Malawi Electoral Commission (MEC) have escalated into a verbal war with each side maintaining its respective position over police investigations into alleged financial mismanagement.

While the AG, as the government’s chief legal adviser, insists that police investigators are acting within the law in undertaking investigations at the electoral body, the commission maintains that the due process was not followed.

Mbeta has advised the Malawi Police Service to proceed with investigations into issues raised in an audit of MEC’s financial management, dismissing the commission’s position that police should wait until MEC formally responds to the Auditor General’s findings.

Mbeta’s opinion followed a July 24 2026 letter in which MEC chairperson Annabel Mtalimanja complained that it was procedurally unfair for Fiscal Police to summon the commission’s officers before management had received the preliminary audit report and given an opportunity to respond to the audit observations.

Yesterday, Fiscal Police in Lilongwe summoned chief elections officer Andrew Mpesi, deputy chief elections officer (Finance and Administration) Andrew Kamkwalala, director of finance Khumbo Phiri and director of administration and human resources Yacinto Chikapa over issues arising from the audit.

In his July 29 2026 response to the MEC complaint, Mbeta said the Public Audit Act does not prevent the police from investigating suspected criminal conduct before an audited institution has responded to audit findings.

Citing Section 14(1) of the Public Audit Act, he argued that while the Auditor General “may require” an affected institution to respond within 14 days, the provision is discretionary and not manda

tory.

“There is no provision in the Public Audit Act which bars the Malawi Police Service from carrying out this mandate,” Mbeta wrote. “It is important to note that… the law uses the word ‘may’ which means that the same is discretionary on the Auditor General and not mandatory.”

He also said that an exit meeting between the Auditor General’s team and MEC management was already held, as such, the commission could not claim ignorance of the audit.

“In view of the foregoing, I advise the  commission… to cooperate with the Police or any law enforcement agency as they are carrying out their independent investigations,” Mbeta said, warning that obstructing law enforcement agencies in the execution of their mandate is a criminal offence.

But MEC has maintained that its concern is not about shielding anyone from investigation, but following the audit process as prescribed under the Public Audit Act.

Mtalimanja, a judge of the High Court of Malawi, made the position in her letter to Inspector General of Police dated July 24 2026 copied to AG Mbeta, the Director of Public Prosecutions, the Auditor General and other public offices.

She said although MEC management attended an exit meeting with auditors, the commission was assured that a preliminary audit report would subsequently be shared to enable it to submit explanations, clarifications and supporting documentation before the report was finalised.

Mtalimanja said the commission was yet to receive the preliminary report and had, therefore, not been afforded an opportunity to address issues raised by auditors.

“The commission is particularly concerned that the investigation is now requiring responses, explanations or clarifications on matters in the audit report from individual MEC officers before such matters have first been presented to management or to the commission,” she said.