Parliament may not prosecute corruption suspects, but does it have the power to investigate them? Retired Supreme Court of Appeal Judge Dunstain Mwaungulu has challenged Information Minister Shadric Namalomba’s position on the legislature’s powers.
Justice Mwaungulu has challenged Information Minister Namalomba’s position on Parliament’s powers to investigate corruption, arguing that the National Assembly has the authority to investigate suspected criminal activities, including corruption.
Mwaungulu said Parliament could conduct forensic inquiries into suspected wrongdoing and examine potential criminal and civil liability. However, he emphasised that its mandate does not extend to determining the guilt of suspects or prosecuting them.
His remarks follow a statement reportedly made by Namalomba on Facebook, in which the minister argued that Parliament does not have the power to investigate corruption. The position has sparked debate over the legislature’s constitutional mandate in the fight against corruption.
The debate gained momentum after Speaker of Parliament Sameer Suleman reportedly told a gathering at a Muslim congregation that corruption had severely affected the country, drawing attention to Parliament’s role in promoting accountability and scrutinising public affairs.
In clarifying the distinction between Parliament’s investigative powers and the responsibilities of law enforcement agencies, Mwaungulu explained that the National Assembly could investigate allegations of wrongdoing and uncover evidence pointing to possible criminal conduct.
He stressed, however, that parliamentary investigations should not be confused with criminal investigations, prosecutions or judicial proceedings, which fall within the mandates of the relevant institutions.
According to Mwaungulu, whenever parliamentary inquiries uncover evidence suggesting that an offence may have been committed, the findings should be referred to the appropriate authorities for further investigation and possible prosecution.
These institutions include the Malawi Police Service, the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP), the Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB) and other agencies mandated to investigate suspected financial crimes.
Mwaungulu’s position highlights the importance of parliamentary oversight in strengthening transparency and accountability while respecting the distinct roles of institutions within the country’s justice system.
The debate has renewed public discussion about the extent of Parliament’s authority to scrutinise public affairs, investigate allegations of corruption and refer suspected criminal conduct to the relevant authorities.
At the centre of the disagreement is the distinction between Parliament’s power to investigate and expose suspected wrongdoing and the legal responsibility of law enforcement agencies and prosecutorial authorities to pursue criminal cases.
Mwaungulu’s argument is that, although Parliament cannot determine criminal guilt or prosecute suspects, it can play a crucial role in uncovering suspected corruption and ensuring that evidence of possible offences is brought to the attention of the institutions responsible for taking further action.