By Francis Belekanyama:
Every Malawian has heard the same explanation at one point or another: “There are no dollars.” Manufacturers hear it when trying to import raw materials. Hospitals hear it when procuring specialised medicines and medical equipment. Fuel importers hear it. Small businesses hear it when attempting to restock their shelves.
Yet, almost in the same breath, the country continues to witness the arrival of internationally acclaimed musicians whose performances require substantial payments in foreign currency. This contrast has ignited a difficult national conversation: How does Malawi struggle to access foreign exchange for essential imports while large international entertainment events continue to proceed?
For some people, the answer is simple: money laundering. Others dismiss such concerns as mere speculation.
- Advertisement -
The truth, however, lies somewhere between suspicion and evidence. Instead of rushing to conclusions, this moment presents an opportunity to ask deeper questions about transparency, economic governance and the management of one of Malawi’s scarcest national resources; foreign exchange.
- Advertisement -
To understand the debate, it is first necessary to understand what money laundering actually is. Money laundering is the process of concealing the origins of money obtained through criminal activities so that it appears to have been earned from legitimate business.
Internationally, this usually involves placing illicit funds into the financial system, moving them through multiple transactions to disguise their source, and eventually integrating them into the formal economy as apparently lawful income.
This definition is important because it highlights a critical point that is often lost in public debate: the presence of an international artist in Malawi is not, by itself, evidence of money laundering. Legitimate promoters can lawfully engage foreign performers, provided they obtain foreign exchange through authorised channels, comply with banking regulations, meet tax obligations and satisfy anti-money laundering requirements. Allegations of criminal conduct require evidence established through investigation; not assumption or public opinion.
However, dismissing public concerns altogether would also be a mistake. Around the world, the entertainment industry has occasionally been exploited for illicit financial flows because it often involves high value international payments, sponsorship agreements, ticket revenues, cash transactions and complex contractual arrangements. These characteristics do not make entertainment inherently suspicious, but they do require effective financial oversight.
- Advertisement -
The question, therefore, is not whether concerts are illegal; it is whether Malawi’s regulatory institutions are sufficiently equipped to ensure that every significant cross-border payment is transparent, properly documented and fully compliant with the law.
The debate becomes even more significant when viewed against Malawi’s current economic reality. The country continues to experience persistent foreign exchange shortages that have affected businesses across multiple sectors. Manufacturers frequently report delays in importing production inputs. Pharmacies and hospitals have at times struggled to procure specialised medicines and medical supplies. Importers of machinery, spare parts and agricultural inputs regularly face difficulties accessing the foreign currency needed to sustain productive economic activity.
In such an environment, every major foreign currency transaction naturally attracts public attention.
This is not simply a question of entertainment. It is a question of economic consistency.
Foreign exchange is a finite national resource. Every dollar allocated to one transaction is a dollar unavailable for another.
While international concerts may stimulate tourism, support hospitality businesses and create temporary employment, citizens are justified in asking whether the broader system governing foreign exchange allocation is transparent, equitable and aligned with national development priorities.
Perhaps the more uncomfortable truth is that this debate exposes a deeper structural weakness within Malawi’s economy. For decades, Malawi has remained heavily dependent on imports while generating relatively limited foreign exchange through exports.
A narrow export base, limited industrialisation and low levels of value addition continue to constrain the country’s ability to earn sufficient foreign currency.
As a result, shortages have become a recurring feature of the economy rather than an occasional challenge.
In such circumstances, almost every visible international transaction becomes a source of public scrutiny.
The solution, however, is not to prohibit international concerts or discourage legitimate investment in the creative economy. Entertainment contributes to economic activity and cultural development. The solution is to strengthen transparency.
The Reserve Bank of Malawi should continue improving transparency in the allocation and monitoring of foreign exchange. Commercial banks must maintain rigorous compliance procedures for international transactions. The Financial Intelligence Authority should continue strengthening oversight of high value financial flows in accordance with anti-money laundering legislation, while the Malawi Revenue Authority should ensure that all taxes arising from international entertainment events are fully accounted for.
Strong institutions protect both legitimate investors and the public interest.
Parliament also has an important role to play. Rather than allowing the debate to be dominated by rumors or political accusations, legislators should demand greater disclosure on how foreign exchange allocation systems operate, how large international payments are monitored and whether existing safeguards remain adequate in the face of evolving financial risks.
Ultimately, the real issue is not whether international artists should perform in Malawi. The real issue is whether Malawi has built institutions that are capable of ensuring that every dollar leaving the country— whether for medicines, fertiliser, machinery, education, investment or entertainment—is allocated transparently, managed responsibly and subjected to the same standards of accountability.
The public’s concern is, therefore, not fundamentally about music. It is about trust. When citizens repeatedly hear that foreign exchange is unavailable for productive sectors, yet observe major international transactions proceeding without explanation, questions are inevitable. The strongest response to those questions is not denial or speculation; it is transparency.
In the end, Malawi’s greatest challenge is not proving whether a concert was properly financed. It is building an economy that generates enough foreign exchange to finance both essential imports and legitimate private investment without creating suspicion, uncertainty or public mistrust. Until that goal is achieved, the dollar question will continue to echo far beyond the concert stage.
*The author is a Member of Parliament
