Fanizo Lozama

Fanizo lakuya ili. Mwini chuma anatenga ndalama zisanu napatsa wantchito oyamba, ndalama ziwiri kwa wanchito wina, komanso ndalama imodzi kwa wantchito omaliza. Ndipo malemba anenetsa kuti, aliyense anapatsidwa malinga ndi luntha lake.

Mwini chuma anapita ulendo wake kwa nthawi ndithu. Uja analandira zisanu analowa pa msika, nachita malonda ndi kupeza phindu la ndalama zina zisanu. Chimodzimodzi uja analandira ndalama ziwiri, nayenso analowa pa msika, natakata ndi kupeza phindu la ndalama zina ziwiri.

Koma uja analandira ndalama imodzi uja, aaaa za chisoni, anakumana ndi achina Chakwera, Chilima ndi mnyamata wawo Mtambo, a nthawi imeneyo. Ali “amwene, bwana wanu uja ndi wankhanza. Taonani chuma cha dziko sichikuyenda bwino, musalowe pa msika amwene, mubetsa ndalama yonseyo. Ndiponso onani ulamuliro wa Kaesala, wa nkhanza. Iwe ndi muyuda, ungapange phindu mu ufumu wa Aroma? Udikire ife tikatenga boma. Udzakweta.”

Ndiye yalani bodza pamene paja. “Waona, ma demo tikupangawa, tigwetsa boma. Titenga boma limeneli.”

Ndiye kunali ana osowa chochita, achina Kunkuyu a nthawi imeneyo, kumayenda mmidzi ya Ayuda, amvekere, “tiyeni ku mademo, tikufuna tilamule dzikoli ife tikupatseni zosowa zanu.”

Basi, uja olandira ndalama imodzi kupusisika, eti kukwilira ndalama ija, mu dothi.

Patapita nthawi, mwini chuma balamanthu, wafika. Uja analandira ndalama zisanu anabweretsa ndalama khumi, atapanga phindu. Chimodzimodzi wa ndalama ziwiri uja, anapeza phindu la ndalama zina ziwiri. Kwa awiriwa mwini chuma anati, “akapolo okhulupirka inu, lowani mu chokondwelero cha atate anga, ndipo mudzapatsidwa zochuluka.”

Naye uja wa ndalama imodzi anafika, amvekele: “Mbuye wanga, ndinadziwa kuti ndinu munthu wa nkhanza, okolola pomwe simunafese, ndi kututa pomwe simunazale. Ine ndinaopa mtima wanu wa nkhanzawo ndipo ndalama yanu ndinaikwilira mu nthaka. Nayi, kwayani ndalama yanu.”

Chosadziwa. Mwini chuma anati, “Kapolo osakhulupirika iwe. Ngati unadziwa kuti ndine wankhanza, okolora pomwe sindinafese, bwanji sunatenge ndalama yanga kukaisunga ku banki kuti ipange chiongoladzanja? Mulandeni ndalamayo, ndipo muipeleke kwa uyo ali ndi khumi. Pakuti kwa iye ali nazo zochuluka, yemweyo adzapatsidwa.”

Achina Chakwera, Chilima ndi mnyamata wao Mtambo osaoneka. Mwana osowa chochita Kunkuyu kuli ziiii. Atamupweteketsa munthu. Wa ntchito uyu anasauka, chifukwa chomvera anthu a nkhanza kwa amphawi. Antchito ena awiri aja amatakata, kumadya pa ndalama pomwepo, kwinaku akupanga phindu. Uyu amamvera bodzayu, kukwilira ndalama yake, kumasowanso chakudya. Banja lake kumavutika. Ati kudikira nthawi imene a mademo adzatenge boma.

Haaaaaaa! Kupusa.

Hypocrite on the Move Indeed

MCP president Lazarus Chakwera continues to unveil his hypocrisy at every possible moment, something like daily confirmations that he preaches against what he does, that he is a man who can’t be trusted.

Chakwera visited South Africa last week in a Leader of Opposition capacity when he rejected the position here at home, saying his Malawi Congress Party is not in opposition because he won the May 2019 presidential election.

As a result, MCP appointed Lilongwe Central legislator, Lobin Lowe, as interim Leader of Opposition in Parliament (LOP). The announcement was made by First Deputy Speaker Madalitso Kazombo on 3 July.

Yet when an opportunity to travel to South Africa in Leader of Opposition capacity arose, Chakwera jumped on the trip. He went to South Africa to pretend he is Leader of Opposition in Malawi.

Why did Reverend Chakwera pretend to be Leader of Opposition? Three weeks ago, on 25 August, I published an article in which I concluded that Chakwera’s life has been a pursuit of power and money, that he has been a man in a hurry for power and money, and that he remains a man in a hurry for power and money, even now, in politics, years after he retired from the Assemblies of God.

When it is work in Parliament in Malawi, Lowe is Leader of Opposition. But when there is an allowance, there is travel, and there is TV appearance involved, Chakwera is Leader of opposition.
Ha! Hypocrite on the move indeed.

Hypocrite on the Move

Two weeks ago, I wrote about Lazarus Chakwera’s pretence at sainthood when, in fact, he is the Devil, a man who preaches against what he does.

My assessment has been confirmed in the past three days during Chakwera’s visit to South Africa where he is pretending to be concerned with violence on foreigners.  According to online publications, Chakwera preached co-existence on SABC on Friday, 6 August. He said in part: “So, as leaders we must educate our people to say, we are but one people, so we must live right with our neighbours.”

Chakwera preaching good neighbourliness in South Africa when his own supporters in Lilongwe are terrorising road users on Kasiya Road? Some road users have had to pay up to K20,000 for right of way.

There are many stories of how Chakwera’s supporters, who claim to be searching for his votes in vehicles, ask for national IDs and Gule wa Mkulu questions to ascertain a person’s home within Malawi. Those who fail the Chewa Test have to pay for their freedom. These are stories our media houses that claim to be independent have swept under the carpet.

Here at home, Chakwera has not condemned his supporters who have fallen in love with violence. He has not taught his supporters to live right with all Malawians. He has not condemned violence in demonstrations organised by MCP’s sub-office called HRDC.

He threatened to shed blood in Malawi for his loss in presidential election and he is still on that mission. In fact, that goal has not been achieved because no person has been killed during demonstrations and, in that regard, as an organiser of the violence, Chakwera is not satisfied, not yet, until blood is shed.

Chakwera is a pretender, a hypocrite, a man who loves violence, a hypocrite at home in search of relevance abroad, a man who preaches against what he loves to do. He did such preaching three days ago on SABC.

Jesse, Then and Now

Life has a way of putting people in rightful places.

Eight years ago, this time, the media portrayed Jesse Kabwila as a hero of academic freedom at Chancellor College. Peter Mutharika, then Minister of Education, was portrayed as a villain, someone who had failed to resolve the academic freedom dispute.

The media in Malawi judged Mutharika for a task that did not fall under his ministry. The University of Malawi is managed by Council of University of Malawi and not Ministry of Education. But in a quest to portray Mutharika as a failure, journalists insisted on a lie that he had failed to manage the crisis.

Jesse was a darling of the media, then, eight years ago. Adjectives were used on her to qualify her strength, her fighting spirit. Even primary school children in Malawi knew there was Jesse Kabwila, the hero. Children could recognise her voice.

She spoke as if she was the last authority on matters of life. She acted as if she was some god, with knowledge of the future. She was Jesse, Jesse Kabwila.

Now, today, eight years later, not eight years ago, but eight years later, in 2019, the media no longer interviews Jesse. She is no longer at Chancellor College. She is no longer in Parliament. She is invisible, almost forgotten, while Mutharika is President of Malawi.

Life has a way of putting people in rightful places. 

End of Times Journalism

The story about “bomb scare” at a meeting between the Attorney General and HRDC has confirmed, again, that journalism at Times Group, is dying. Or is dead and is being buried. 

Malawi News of 31 August 2019 carried a story titled “Bomb Scare at AG, HRDC Meet.” The intro reads as follows: “A dialogue meeting between Attorney General and Human Rights Defenders Coalition (HRDC) was yesterday disrupted following a failed attempt by unknown assailants to bomb a vehicle belonging to HRDC Vice-Chairperson Gift Trapence.”

The next paragraph says the bomb scare came after HRDC changed venue of the meeting twice for security concerns. Then the third paragraph says HRDC chairperson Timothy Mtambo accused government was responsible for the “bomb.”

He said: “This is not the first time to experience this. If not for our private security guard, our vehicles [would] have been bombed. Worse still, the incident was happening in the presence of Deputy Inspector of Police John Nyondo as well as many other police officers. One could ask how safe we are in our own country.”

The reporter, thereafter, gives what reads like an eye witness account of the attempted bombing. She writes: “The bomb scare came when [Attorney General Kalekeni] Kaphale ordered reporters and other people who came to follow the proceedings of the dialogue to walk out of the meeting room so that he could discuss with HRDC lawyer Khwima Mchizi in camera.

“The assailant who was among the people who came to follow the proceedings, alongside a colleague, then started inquiring about who was in HRDC. He then headed towards Trapence’s vehicle with what was suspected to be a hand grenade. However, a member of HRDC security detail smelled danger and followed the suspected assailant who fled for dear life.

“When the colleague of the assailant realised that his friend was cornered, he too, fled much to the surprise of journalists who had gathered outside the meeting room.

“Ironically, police officers who were at the venue did nothing to apprehend the suspects.

“After the incident, the meeting continued without the presence of HRDC leadership who boycotted after AG informed the meeting that journalists were not allowed to attend the meeting until after the discussion.”

I would spend two to three pages discussing the poor writing in the story: missed commas, poor construction of ideas and sentences, dull paragraphs, and other areas. But that is not a task for today. Now I would like to raise questions to demonstrate that the article is testimony that journalism ended at Times.

The first paragraph of the story signifies that the “bomb scare” happened. The editors were sure they reported the truth. The editors wrote a comment that showed their belief in the story.

Said the comment in part in paragraph four: “The uncovering of the bomb scare during the AG/HRDC meeting is quite unfortunate because it gives an impression that the government was not being honest on agenda of the meeting and might be harbouring sinister motives against the human rights defenders, which probably explains why the HRDC team had to twice ask for venue change before settling for the final destination where the bomb scare issue emanated.”

The 67 word, poorly written sentence is part of the fourth paragraph. If I were to analyse the quality of writing in the sentence, I would spend two to three pages. And this is an editorial written by editors. Now if editors can’t control their writing, can’t punctuate their sentences, can’t argue based on sound premises, who would? Well, the writing is for a different day.

The whole story is fiction. A grenade takes five seconds to explode and has a lethal area of 10 to 40 metres. There was no need for the “assailant” to get that close to the car. The editors would have known that a grenade is thrown at target not planted, if they understood security issues. I mean, haven’t the editors been following security reports in Iraq and Afghanistan?

The reporter’s narration about the incident implies she saw the “assailant” and his “colleague.” The reporter should have taken one or two pictures of the “Assailant” at some point when he was asking about HRDC leaders, planting a grenade, or running away. Or, at least the picture of the assailant’s colleague, running away. In addition, the reporter should have interviewed two of the many journalists who were present, to collaborate her account.

Well, I am asking too much for an incident that did not happen. And, as if to wash their hands, the editors wrote a disclaimer-like-paragraph in the comment: “But then, there is also need to tread carefully because the human rights defenders might try to ride the wave of the support they are enjoying from the public by staging antics that would win them more sympathy from their supporting their cause.”

Some conclusions here:

1. The reporter’s first-hand account of the bomb reads more like fiction than reality

2. Malawi News should have interviewed security experts about petrol bombs and grenades.

3. The newspaper should have reported how HRDC changed venues and ended up at a venue where there was a “bomb scare.” How should we, the audience, read into the changing of venues to a venue with a “bomb scare?”

4. The proper headline should have been “HRDC Fakes Bomb Scare”

It is sad that the country’s oldest media house could report a lie as truth. It is tragic that Malawi News is avoided valid questions to frame HRDC leaders as honest people.