OPINION | GUEST ESSAY | Anthony Simwaka

The events of 14 May 2026, during which members of the Malawi Congress Party and their leader, Lazarus Chakwera — he is also a former President of the Republic — were prevented from laying a wreath at the mausoleum of Hastings Kamuzu Banda, raise serious questions about security protocol and professionalism.

The Malawi Police Service used teargas to disperse MCP supporters before they reached their intended destination.

Whether MCP followed the proper procedures to obtain permission for the gathering, or whether the police acted appropriately under the circumstances, is not the central issue here. The more pressing concern is the conduct and competence of the former president’s security detail.

Under Malawi’s Constitution, a former president is entitled to state-provided security protection. It is therefore reasonable to assume that Chakwera’s security personnel operate under the authority of the Malawi Police Service and/or the Malawi Defence Force.

If that assumption is correct, then what occurred on 14 May represents a serious security failure. Police officers constitutionally obligated to protect a former head of state ended up deploying teargas in an environment where that same former president was present. That contradiction alone deserves scrutiny.

The conduct of Chakwera’s security team also raises difficult questions about training, coordination and judgment. How did they allow a former president to proceed into an environment that was already visibly volatile?

In many established democracies, security personnel are expected to override political considerations when the safety of a current or former head of state is at risk. There should have been clear communication between the Malawi Police Service, the Malawi Defence Force and Chakwera’s security detail advising that the situation was no longer secure. If such communication did not occur, then the failure is institutional. If it did occur and was ignored, then the lapse becomes even more serious.

In either case, the security team should have exercised professional discretion and prevented Chakwera from proceeding.

For that reason, it is difficult to avoid the conclusion that the former president should seriously consider dismissing his current security detail. The failure to anticipate risk, communicate effectively and provide adequate protection should be sufficient grounds to relieve security personnel of their duties.

Chakwera himself may also bear some responsibility. Decision-making has not always been regarded as his strongest political attribute, and it is possible that senior MCP officials, including the party’s secretary-general and others, influenced the decision to proceed, perhaps calculating that political symbolism outweighed the risks.

But political theatre can quickly become dangerous.

Malawi was fortunate that the events of 14 May ended without loss of life. The next confrontation may not end the same way.

—

Also Read: Kamuzu Day clashes reignite Malawi’s unfinished battle over Banda’s legacy