The growing tension between Speaker of Parliament Sameer Suleman and the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) is not simply a disagreement over parliamentary investigations; it raises a much bigger question about party discipline, political consultation, parliamentary independence and the boundaries between the Legislature and the Executive.
At the centre of the controversy is a simple question: What exactly does the DPP expect from a Speaker who comes from its own ranks, and what should the Speaker expect from his party?
The answer is more complicated than either side may want to admit. The Speaker is constitutionally independent. The starting point must be the Constitution.
Section 53 of the Constitution provides strong protection for the independence of the Speaker. It states that the Speaker shall exercise the powers of the office independently of outside direction or interference and, importantly, shall not be subject to the control, discipline, authority or direction of a political party when discharging the functions of that office.
That means the DPP cannot legitimately demand that Speaker Suleman abandon Parliament’s oversight responsibilities simply because the investigations may politically inconvenience a DPP government.
- Advertisement -
Parliament must scrutinise the Executive [and even the Judiciary]. That is part of democracy.
However, constitutional independence is not the same thing as political isolation.
That is where the present dispute becomes more complicated.
Party protocol still matters
- Advertisement -
- Advertisement -
Suleman did not cease to have a political history when he became Speaker. He emerged from the DPP and remains a significant political figure associated with the governing party.
The DPP’s concern, therefore, appears to be less about Parliament asking difficult questions and more about the manner in which major politically sensitive initiatives are being pursued and publicly communicated.
Suleman has raised issues ranging from electricity and Escom/ Egenco to National Oil Company, passports, pensions, prisons, mining, agriculture, tobacco and public procurement. Parliament has also moved towards joint committee investigations into several matters.
These are legitimate issues. Malawians deserve answers.
But they are also politically explosive issues touching directly on the performance and credibility of the government. For a governing party, that naturally raises questions about consultation and coordination.
Political parties operate through structures. There is a party President, a Central Executive Committee, a Secretary General, parliamentary leadership and a parliamentary caucus. The government itself operates through Cabinet and established institutions.
Consultation does not mean seeking permission to exercise constitutional authority; it means recognising that where institutions belonging to the same democratic system are about to take actions with major political and governmental consequences, dialogue can prevent unnecessary confrontation.
Indeed, DPP secretary general Peter Mukhito’s public intervention was explicit on this point. The party says it supports legitimate parliamentary oversight but does not want the Speaker’s office developing into what it considers a competing centre of executive or political authority.
That distinction lies at the heart of the dispute. Is Parliament exercising oversight—or is the Speaker becoming the story?
A Speaker must protect Parliament. But the Speaker must also remain sufficiently above political combat to referee Parliament fairly. This is why the current situation requires careful handling.
The more parliamentary investigations are personally associated with the Speaker, rather than with Parliament and its established committees, the greater the danger that legitimate institutional oversight becomes interpreted as the personal political programme of the individual occupying the Speaker’s chair.
That would be unhealthy both for Parliament and for the DPP.
The Speaker should facilitate Parliament’s authority, not become bigger than Parliament itself.
Equally, the DPP must avoid the opposite mistake: interpreting every act of parliamentary independence as disloyalty to the party.
The Speaker’s independence is not an act of generosity from the DPP. It is protected by the Constitution.
The challenge is therefore finding the line between independence and political confrontation.
Then came the public confrontation
Unfortunately, what might have been resolved through internal consultation has now entered the public arena.
The DPP publicly cautioned Suleman. Suleman publicly pushed back.
The Speaker reportedly maintained that he communicates directly with President Arthur Peter Mutharika and defended Parliament’s responsibility to investigate matters affecting Malawians.
That exchange changes the political dynamics.
Once disagreements between senior figures of a governing party are conducted through press statements and media responses, the issue ceases to be merely institutional. It becomes political.
Opposition figures have publicly praised Suleman’s position while civil society organisations have supported Parliament’s investigations, albeit with reservations about whether the large number of committees can operate effectively.
That does not prove a political project exists. But it explains why the DPP is watching carefully. So what does Suleman want?
Perhaps this is the question troubling the DPP most. Is he simply determined to preside over a stronger and more assertive Parliament? Is he deliberately demonstrating the independence of the Speaker’s office?
Is he responding to genuine public frustration over electricity, corruption allegations and poor public services? Or is a larger political identity beginning to emerge around him?
Only Suleman can definitively answer those questions.
What is clear is that his recent posture has created political uncertainty, and uncertainty inside a governing party can sometimes be as destabilising as open disagreement.
The DPP, therefore, needs to understand the Speaker rather than merely confront him.
And the Speaker needs to appreciate that even constitutionally legitimate actions can have political consequences.
The answer is consultation, not confrontation. Neither side benefits from escalating this disagreement.
