Malawi’s struggle with corruption in high places has become even more complicated because of ongoing delays and difficulties in appointing someone to head the country’s Anti-Corruption Bureau. Now the high court has issued an important decision that could have far-reaching impact: Judge Simeon Mdeza has backed a finding by Malawi’s Ombud, Grace Malera, in which she disqualified the two shortlisted candidates for the job of anti-corruption czar. She made this finding on the basis that the minimum requirements for appointment, as laid down in the law, weren’t being applied to applicants for the position.
*
WHEN Malawi’s Ombud, Grace Malera, received an anonymous complaint about the process then under way to appoint a new head of the country’s Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB), she responded immediately, setting up an investigation to establish whether the complaint was well-founded.
Her report, published in January 2025, was alarming. Of all those who applied for the job as director of the ACB, just two had been shortlisted. But, she found, neither was properly qualified. One, the ACB’s former deputy director, and sometime acting director, Hillary Chilomba, didn’t meet the minimum requirements set out in the advertisement for the position. And while the other, Oscar Taulo, met the ad’s requirements, there was another problem: the advertised requirements were lower than those stipulated in the law, and Taulo didn’t satisfy the standards set in the statute.
This meant, she found, that the shortlisting and interviewing of both Chilomba and Taulo were irregular, unprocedural and amounting to maladministration. As a result, neither could be considered for the post.
High Court vindicates Ombud’s findings
It didn’t take long for Taulo and Chilomba to ask that the High Court review and set aside the Ombud’s report. Last week, the judge involved, Simeon Mdeza, handed down his decision, and it’s a complete vindication of the Ombud and her findings.
The first hurdle was the claim by Taulo and Chilomba that the Ombud should not have considered an anonymous objection. But this argument hadn’t taken into account that the law had changed, and an amendment, gazetted several months before the anonymous complaint, allows a complaint even where the identity of the person involved isn’t disclosed.
The judge also found that the Ombud had jurisdiction, despite argument by Taulo and Chilomba that she was excluded from considering the complaint because it was ‘a labour-related matter’. Mdeza said the recruitment of the director of an ACB was ‘not an ordinary private employment process’. It involved a public office created by the Corrupt Practices Act, facilitated by the Ministry of Justice, ‘a public authority’.
He concluded that the Ombud’s investigation didn’t concern terms and conditions of employment or enforcing an employment contract. Rather it dealt with whether the ‘Ministry of Justice complied with section 6 (5) of the Corrupt Practices Act when setting the eligibility criteria and shortlisting candidates. That is a question of public law, not labour law.’
Separation of powers argument
What about the separation of powers argument by Taulo and Chilomba, namely that when the Ombud considered the job advertisement she went beyond her mandate; that she strayed into the realm of the judiciary, because she was interpreting statutes?
The Ombud said her constitutional mandate necessarily involved examining whether administrative action complied with the law, and she couldn’t do that unless she examined the statutory framework of the disputed administrative act.
In this case, the interviews and shortlisting followed an advert issued by the public authority. ‘If that advertisement set a threshold lower than that prescribed by statute, the entire process would be infected with illegality,’ she argued. Identifying an illegality wouldn’t be an assumption of judicial power, but was rather ‘an inherent aspect of investigating maladministration.’
What about the Ombud’s findings on the merits?
The judge agreed with her reasoning on these questions, but still had to consider her overall conclusion that the attributes listed in the advert didn’t square with the statutory requirements. Was her conclusion ‘legally sustainable’?
The crux of the dispute was this: when the law required at least 10 years of professional experience for appointment, did it mean that someone should have acquired an academic legal qualification at least 10 years before, or did it mean that the candidate should have been admitted to practice at least 10 years before?
The advertised requirement was 10 years since academic qualification, not 10 years since admission to professional practice, and the Ombud found this was wrong since, in her view, the legislature clearly wanted to ensure that the ACB director had at least 10 years of professional level experience in finance, law or law enforcement.
The judge did not seem to disagree with her findings, but stressed that his agreement or disagreement wasn’t the test in a case of judicial review. Rather than being a question of whether the court would have drawn the same conclusion, the issue was whether her interpretation was ‘unlawful, irrational or plainly wrong in law’.
‘Weakening statutory safeguards’ if requirements lowered
Taulo and Chilomba hadn’t shown that the Ombud’s interpretation was inconsistent with the language of the statute or with binding precedent. Instead, they asked the court to ‘adopt a narrower reading that would separate the 10-year requirement from the professional qualification component.’ Such an interpretation wasn’t ‘compelled by the text’, said the judge. Moreover, it would ‘weaken the statutory safeguard intended by Parliament.’
Thus, the Ombud’s interpretation was legally sustainable. Her conclusion was neither ‘irrational’ nor ‘unlawful’ and as a result her finding that candidates who didn’t meet with statutory threshold had to be disqualified ‘was a logical and lawful consequence’.
While he formally found against Taulo and Chilomba, the judge said the case involved important questions of public administration, and he made no order as to costs.
Both shortlisted candidate now excluded: not qualified
What this means is that, when it resumes work to find a new ACB director, the interviewing committee may not consider either Taulo or Chilomba, or any other candidate who does not comply with the requirements that the court found were stipulated in the law.
It is too early to tell whether Taulo and Chilomba will appeal. But even if they don’t, the search for a new ACB leader will inevitably now be further delayed. It was important that the Ombud, and then the court, weighed in to ensure only correctly qualified candidates were considered, but the matter of appointment is urgent. Since the last substantive director, Martha Chizuma, left office in March 2024, the ACB has been headed by temporary appointees. Added to this, media reports in late 2025 alleged that Chilomba, one-time deputy director and, at the stage the allegations surfaced, the acting director of the ACB, was himself linked somehow to a country-wide fertiliser distribution scam.
Though nothing further seems to have come of those allegations against Chilomba, the ACB has been weakened by these two years without proper leadership. It’s a body that must be above suspicion, unafraid of acting against even those who hold positions of power and influence. And it’s now urgently in need of a strong – properly qualified – director, someone who will provide stability to the agency and who is widely perceived as above reproach.
* Written 8 March 2026