Chief Secretary to the Government Justin Saidi appears to have found himself at the centre of an unusual concentration of power, with his office now at odds with both the Vice President and the Speaker of the National Assembly.
The question is not whether the Secretary to the President and Cabinet (SPC) is powerful. The office is. The bigger question is where the limits of that power lie, and who holds the SPC accountable when disputes involve constitutional offices.
Vice President Jane Ansah’s recent interview with Zodiak Broadcasting Station (ZBS) has brought that question sharply into focus.
Ansah said she travelled from Blantyre to Lilongwe for a Cabinet meeting but found that she had not received the Cabinet papers. She said she contacted Saidi after hearing about the meeting but could not reach him, eventually sending a message asking that her absence be recorded as an apology.
“When I came, the Cabinet bag was not there. I sent a message to the Chief Secretary [Saidi] informing him that I heard of a Cabinet meeting and I do not have the bag,” Ansah said.
This was not the first dispute involving Saidi and a constitutional office-holder.
In July, President Peter Mutharika delegated Second Vice President Enock Chihana to chair a Cabinet meeting that Ansah was not invited to attend, despite being available.
Saidi defended the arrangement, saying: “The law allows the President to delegate the Second Vice-President. It also allows the President to delegate the First Vice-President.”
But lawyer Seodi White challenged that interpretation, arguing that the Constitution does not give the president a general power to delegate the function in the manner suggested.
“A Cabinet meeting chaired by someone who has no authority to preside, notably the Second Vice-President, when the First Vice-President is available, is constitutionally irregular and procedurally defective,” White argued.
White said the constitutional provision operates automatically when the specified circumstances arise rather than giving the president unlimited discretion to choose who chairs Cabinet.
A second constitutional clash
On Sept. 11, Saidi entered another constitutional dispute, this time with Speaker of the National Assembly over the creation of ad hoc committees to probe public institutions.
Saidi argued that the Speaker could not establish such committees without consulting the president.
Justice Dustain Mwaungulu challenged that interpretation, arguing that the relevant constitutional provision concerns standing committees and does not require presidential approval for parliamentary procedural matters.
The repeated clashes have raised a broader question: is the SPC merely implementing presidential decisions, or has the office acquired enough influence to independently shape how government and constitutional offices operate?
There are also questions about the privileges attached to the office.
Saidi has recently been seen travelling with a Malawi Police Service escort, commonly known as a sweeper, despite questions over whether such protection forms part of the prescribed benefits for the SPC.
A senior Democratic Progressive Party member, speaking on condition of anonymity, claimed Saidi is acting on instructions from people close to Mutharika.
“It is those people that issue instructions to Saidi. These are the people who pushed for his appointment and therefore he has to play ball to them,” the source said.
That claim could not, on its own, establish who is directing the SPC. But it adds to a growing debate about the relationship between the powerful civil service office and the political leadership around the president.
Malawi has been here before
The controversy is not unique to Saidi.
During Lazarus Chakwera’s administration, his SPC, Zangazanga Chikhosi, faced sustained calls for removal less than a year after his appointment.
The pressure continued for more than a year before Chakwera removed Chikhosi in May 2022 and replaced him with Colleen Zamba.
Zamba later became embroiled in allegations concerning fuel procurement at the National Oil Company of Malawi. Former Nocma acting chief executive Helen Buluma told Parliament that Zamba had pressured her over fuel-supply contracts and introduced her to a Nigeria-based broker known as “Chief”.
Zamba’s alleged involvement became a public issue, with the Catholic Commission for Justice and Peace calling for answers over the claims.
The allegations did not establish that the SPC was running government. But, as with Chikhosi, the controversy exposed a recurring problem: when an SPC becomes embroiled in a dispute and the presidency does not provide a clear and timely explanation, questions about presidential control inevitably follow.
The real power question
The history of Chikhosi, Zamba and now Saidi suggests that the issue is bigger than the individual occupying the SPC office.
The Secretary to the President and Cabinet sits at a unique intersection of the presidency, Cabinet and the civil service. That makes the office necessarily powerful.
But power without clear lines of accountability creates suspicion.
The question for Saidi, and ultimately for Mutharika, is therefore not whether the SPC should be powerful. It is whether that power is being exercised within clearly defined constitutional and administrative limits, and whether anyone can effectively scrutinise it when those limits are disputed.
For an unelected official sitting at the centre of government, that distinction matters.
