By Anthony Simwaka
Malawi’s vice presidency was meant to ensure stability. Instead, it’s become a costly source of political feuds and dysfunction. From Kamuzu Banda’s efficient transitional model to today’s ceremonial dead weight it’s time, as Anthony Simwaka argues, to scrap the role entirely and restore a system that actually worked.
The original intent behind the establishment of the vice presidency, as envisioned by the framers of the Constitution, was to ensure continuity in governance in the event of the president’s death or incapacitation. However, over time, this office has evolved into a source of persistent conflict between presidents and their deputies — undermining the very stability it was meant to safeguard.
Judicial rulings have further complicated this dynamic by affirming that the president lacks the authority to dismiss the vice president. This legal constraint has, in some cases, emboldened vice presidents to act with impunity, eroding executive cohesion and accountability.
Initially, I advocated for constitutional reform to grant the president the authority to dismiss the vice president under extenuating circumstances, such as insubordination or dereliction of duty. Historical precedents support this view. With the exception of Justin Malewezi, who resigned voluntarily, most vice presidents have demonstrated conduct that could have justified dismissal:
Cassim Chilumpha refused to report for duty. Joyce Banda distanced herself from the administration after President Bingu wa Mutharika reneged on a succession promise. Saulos Chilima had contentious relationships with both Presidents Peter Mutharika and Lazarus Chakwera.
The current vice president (Michael Usi) has openly criticized the very government he serves.
These recurring tensions stem from a lack of loyalty and mutual trust between the two offices. Loyalty is a cornerstone of effective leadership — it fosters trust, ensures commitment, and strengthens institutional integrity. Without it, governance becomes fragmented, and public service is compromised.
A comparative example can be drawn from the U.S. administration under President Donald Trump first term. Despite efforts to build trust with the Republican establishment, several key appointees lacked loyalty, ultimately obstructing his agenda. The prolonged investigation into alleged Russian collusion — despite internal knowledge of its dubious origins — illustrates how disloyalty within leadership can derail governance.
In Malawi’s context, President Chakwera’s selection of Vitumbiko Mumba as running mate appears to be rooted in personal trust and familial ties. While loyalty cannot be guaranteed indefinitely, Mumba’s close relationship with the Chakwera family, particularly with the president’s son Nick, suggests a stronger foundation for collaboration. Any betrayal in this context would be deeply consequential.
Given these considerations, I propose the following three reforms:
- Empower the President: Grant the president constitutional authority to dismiss the vice president in the public interest.
- Eliminate Post-Tenure Benefits: Discontinue benefits for former vice presidents who re-enter active politics.
- Abolish the Office Entirely: Consider scrapping the vice presidency to reduce wasteful expenditure and streamline governance.
The vice presidency, as currently structured, lacks a defined operational mandate. It is untenable to maintain a high-ranking office whose daily functions are ambiguous and often ceremonial. Activities such as golfing, market visits, and public entertainment — while symbolic — do not justify the financial burden on taxpayers.
Instead, I recommend reverting to the original Malawi Congress Party (MCP) constitutional framework under President Kamuzu Banda, which delegated transitional authority to a three-member council in the event of presidential incapacitation, with elections held within 90 days. Alternatively allow for the Speaker of Parliament to act in a transition period during the 90 day period.
While other nations maintain vice presidential offices, Malawi must tailor its governance structures to reflect its economic realities and institutional needs. Eliminating redundant roles is a necessary step toward fiscal responsibility and effective leadership.
