Gangata’s K40 Million Donation Is Service, Not Disrespect

Portraying Minister Alfred Gangata’s K40 million church donation as disrespect towards President Professor Arthur Peter Mutharika is unfair and politically misguided. The fact that Gangata gave more than the President does not, by itself, suggest rivalry or disloyalty.

The controversy followed Gangata’s contribution to a CCAP Livingstonia Synod project, while President Mutharika donated K5 million at the same gathering.

However, the circumstances surrounding Gangata’s donation indicate that it was planned, personal and unrelated to the President’s contribution.

According to Gangata’s aide, Leonard Chimbanga, the Synod approached the minister about six months before the fundraising dinner and invited him to serve as guest of honour for a project in his constituency.

After reviewing the project’s budget, Gangata made a personal pledge and reportedly fulfilled it two months before the event. He did not know who else would donate or how much they would give, and he did not attend the dinner despite being invited.

Other political leaders also contributed to the fundraising effort, demonstrating that the project was supported by several individuals rather than being a contest between Gangata and President Mutharika. According to published reports, President Mutharika donated K5 million, former President and Malawi Congress Party leader Dr Lazarus Chakwera contributed K2.5 million, while UTM president Dr Dalitso Kabambe gave K1 million. Gangata’s K40 million was the largest reported contribution among these political figures.

These contributions should be recognised as separate acts of support towards the same church project, with each donor giving according to personal conviction, ability and the circumstances under which the commitment was made. The difference between the amounts does not automatically establish a political contest or an attempt by one donor to diminish another.

These facts weaken the claim that Gangata was trying to outshine or embarrass President Mutharika. His donation was reportedly an earlier commitment made in response to an identified community need, not a reaction to the President’s K5 million contribution or to the donations made by Chakwera and Kabambe. The contributions from Gangata, President Mutharika, Chakwera and Kabambe should therefore be assessed independently.

Generosity is not a competition in which Cabinet ministers must always give less than the Head of State. President Mutharika’s K5 million donation remains generous and worthy of appreciation. Its value should not be measured against Gangata’s contribution. Equally, Gangata should not be condemned simply because he had pledged a larger amount.

Public officials must remain transparent and accountable concerning substantial donations, and Malawians are entitled to ask legitimate questions about the source of such funds. However, scrutiny should be grounded in evidence rather than speculation about political rivalry. No credible evidence has been presented showing that Gangata intended to undermine, embarrass or challenge President Mutharika through this donation.

Gangata’s political conduct should also be examined within the broader context of his service to the DPP. As a senior party figure in the Central Region, he has played an important role in organising, mobilising and expanding the party’s presence in a highly competitive political territory. His energy, visibility and willingness to support community initiatives can strengthen both the DPP and President Mutharika’s administration.

Loyalty should not require silence, inactivity or personal restraint whenever a minister has an opportunity to help people. A loyal minister should work diligently, defend the administration, strengthen the governing party and translate the President’s vision into practical service. Supporting a church project within his constituency is consistent with the energetic and community-focused leadership that President Mutharika should encourage.

A capable and generous minister does not diminish the President. On the contrary, such a minister can reflect positively on the President’s judgement in appointing people who are willing to act, mobilise resources and respond to community needs. Strong leaders are not weakened when members of their teams perform well; their leadership is validated by the quality and effectiveness of those serving under them.

Gangata’s K40 million donation should therefore be understood as an act of personal generosity, faith and public service—not insubordination.

President Mutharika’s K5 million, Chakwera’s K2.5 million and Kabambe’s K1 million should similarly be welcomed as valuable support for the church.

The real story is not that Gangata outshone his President.

It is that Gangata joined President Mutharika, former President Chakwera, Kabambe and other contributors in answering a community’s call. Malawi should encourage such generosity while continuing to demand transparency, accountability and service to the public good.