Chithyola demands probe into Mutharika's 'best president in Africa' award, questions credibility of APAC

Leader of Opposition in Parliament Simplex Chithyola Banda on Thursday challenged the credibility of an organisation that recently honoured President Arthur Peter Mutharika as Africa's "Best President," demanding that the government explain how it verified the award and whether public resources were used in the process.

Raising what he described as an urgent matter in the National Assembly, Chithyola questioned the legitimacy of the African Presidency Accountability Council (APAC), arguing that there was little publicly available information to prove that it is a credible international body.

The opposition leader said the award had exposed the Presidency to potential embarrassment if it emerged that the organisation was not genuine.

"Malawi is not a laboratory for fake awards. We cannot allow bogus organizations to turn our country into a playing ground for their mediocrity," Chithyola told Parliament.

He argued that APAC exhibited several "serious red flags," including what he described as the absence of a verifiable physical address, website or registration with recognised regional or continental institutions such as the African Union (AU) or the Southern African Development Community (SADC).

Chithyola also questioned the identity of the organisation's purported Secretary General, identified only as "Sherrif," saying no surname, diplomatic credentials or public profile had been provided.

He further criticised the award process for lacking transparency, saying APAC had not published any ranking criteria, methodology or list of assessed presidents, making it impossible to verify how President Mutharika emerged as the continent's top-performing leader.

"We don't know who is number two or even how many presidents were assessed," he said.

The opposition leader also raised concerns over the possible use of taxpayers' money, asking whether government had spent public funds to facilitate APAC representatives or support the award process.

He warned that associating the Office of the President with what he described as an unverified international accolade risked damaging Malawi's reputation.

Chithyola faulted the government for what he called its silence over the matter, saying neither the Ministry of Information nor the Ministry of Foreign Affairs had issued an official explanation about APAC or the basis upon which the award was accepted.

Through the Speaker, he directed eight questions to the two ministries, demanding to know whether government had received official communication from APAC, what due diligence had been conducted to verify the organisation's authenticity, and whether officials had established the identity and nationality of the individual known as "SG Sherrif."

He also sought clarification on whether government had solicited, financed or officially endorsed the award, whether any presidential or government officials participated in receiving it, and whether inquiries had been made with other AU or SADC member states to establish if similar awards had been issued elsewhere.

In addition, Chithyola asked what measures government would take if APAC were found to be a bogus organisation and what verification policy would be introduced to ensure future awards conferred on the Presidency are properly authenticated before being publicly announced.

He asked Parliament to direct the government to present a comprehensive ministerial statement within seven days explaining the circumstances surrounding the award and outlining measures to protect "the dignity of the Presidency from such bogus organizations."

"Malawians deserve truth. We do not need fake crowns. Let the President's work speak for itself," Chithyola said.

The government had not responded to the questions in the House at the time of publication.