DPP’s Namalomba Responds to Allegations by Faceless, Unnamed ‘UTM Loyalists’ Circulating on Fringe Online Platforms

In what is increasingly being viewed as a spectacular case of political overreaction, the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) has launched a full-scale communication assault against what it calls “UTM loyalists” — a faceless, unofficial group whose existence is confined almost entirely to social media comment sections and obscure blogs.

The response, issued by DPP National Publicity Secretary Shadric Namalomba, runs into three pages and is directed at claims published by 247malawi.com, a fringe online platform. Yet the most striking aspect of the statement is not what it says, but who it is aimed at: not the United Transformation Movement (UTM) as a political party, not its leadership, and not its official communication machinery — which has remained completely silent on the matter — but anonymous individuals Namalomba loosely labels as “UTM loyalists.”

In effect, the DPP has gone to war with ghosts.

While Namalomba comes out swinging, accusing “UTM loyalists and supporters” of spreading lies about the DPP’s response to the death of the late Vice President Saulos Chilima, the irony is that UTM itself has not issued a single official statement making those allegations. There is no press release, no briefing, no party spokesperson on record. The so-called attackers exist only in digital shadows — unnamed, unverified, and politically unaccountable.

Yet instead of ignoring these faceless voices, Namalomba chose to dignify them wit

54719019348437386_n.jpg” alt=”Nyasa Times”>

h an official, highly detailed rebuttal. He insists the DPP stood with Chilima’s family from day one, participated in all ceremonies, and was never silent on the plane crash — merely “deliberate.” But by responding so aggressively to unofficial noise, the party has created the impression that it feels threatened not by rival institutions, but by random online commentary.

Political observers say this is a textbook case of strategic self-harm. By dragging UTM into the narrative when its formal structures have said nothing, the DPP has effectively manufactured an enemy where none formally exists. It has transformed anonymous bloggers and social media users into political actors, granting them relevance, legitimacy and national attention.

More damaging still, Namalomba’s statement shifts from defence into outright hostility, accusing “UTM loyalists” of behaving like the “sole owners” of the late Chilima and engaging in “cheap propaganda.” But critics argue that one cannot accuse a political party of propaganda when the party itself has not spoken. What the DPP is really fighting is not UTM — it is digital noise, rumours and online chatter.

In trying to appear strong, the DPP has exposed a deeper weakness: a ruling political machine that feels compelled to explain itself to faceless voices with no official mandate, no leadership, and no accountability. Instead of projecting authority, the party has revealed anxiety. Instead of controlling the narrative, it has surrendered it to anonymous actors.

The brutal truth is this: the DPP did not respond to UTM. It responded to shadows — and in doing so, turned whispers into headlines.