ON THE REMOVAL OF THE ACB BOSS - Realtime Interview

ON THE REMOVAL OF THE ACB BOSS - Realtime Interview

JOURNALIST: With the absence of the ACB Director, how effective can the bureau operate?

THE GOBZ: With the absence of the Director, the Bureau can still operate very effectively, subject to the fact that the Deputy Director will definitely be overburdened, since, under section 8 of the Corrupt Practices Act, the statute that creates the Bureau, if there is no Director then the Deputy Director shall act as Director. This provision is meant to ensure continuity of the functions of the Bureau in the absence of the Director and it avoids disruption of the Bureau’s work due to absence of the Director.
JOURNALIST: Some are speculating that the removal of the ACB Director could have been done on purpose to block the investigations into the President's late brother's foreign accounts. What's your opinion?

THE GOBZ: My opinion is that, in the absence of evidence, it is hard to pin down the main reason why the Director has had to be removed. However, a few considerations may tend to justify people’s speculations. You see, under section 6 of the Corrupt Practices Act, a Director can only be removed from office by the President for two reasons: first, for inability to perform the functions of his office (whether arising from infirmity of body or mind or from any other cause) or for misbehaviour; and secondly, pending investigations to determine whether or not the Director may be removed from office as aforesaid. Further, the President cannot remove the Director on his own without ultimate confirmation of such a move by the Public Appointments Committee. There is no any other way a Director can be removed from office other than those two. Now, the million-dollar question is: Did the President remove the Director pursuant to the dictates of the law? From what the media has reported on the issue so far, it would seem that the President did not comply with the law because, as per Government's explanation, the removal of the Director was based on Government's mandate to reassign its employees anytime it sees the need to do so provided it is convinced that the expertise of a particular individual would be useful in the concerned department. This line of reasoning is very illegal, in as far as removal of the ACB Director is concerned, because under the law the Director cannot be removed based on such kind of logic. Further, there was no confirmation of the removal by the Public Appointments Committee. In my opinion, everybody should be suspicious in such circumstances.

JOURNALIST: Does the constitution prescribe a time frame when the director can be appointed?

THE GOBZ: The ACB is not a constitutional creature. It is rather a creature of the Corrupt Practices Act. Appointment time limits are provided for under section 8 of the said Act. Where the period of such temporary absence has exceeded twenty-one days, the President is under a duty, within fourteen days thereafter, to furnish to the Public Appointments Committee the reasons why the vacancy in both or either of the two offices cannot be substantively filled with immediate effect and an estimate of the time within which the vacancy shall be filled, being not longer than three months from the expiry of the period of twenty-one days herein referred to. Simply put, the law requires the post to be filled within three months after twenty one days have lapsed from the date the Director was removed.

JOURNALIST: Any additional comments on the subject?

THE GOBZ: I have always wanted to work with the DPP led Government. I do not think Pedro would make a mistate if he appointed me Director of the ACB. Savvy?

Michael 61 Billion Goba Chipeta, the first.
10th September 2014.

THE IMMORTALITY OF MY MAY 2014 VOTE

An immortal vote is one that is identical with the voter’s true will. The human will is eternal. Ella Wheeler Wilcox concisely captures this philosophical truth in her aesthetically appealing poetical rendition, The Eternal Will, as follows: “Back of thy parents and grandparents lies the great eternal will. That, too, is thine Inheritance; strong, beautiful, divine, sure lever of success for one who tries.” Further, a human being, as will, loses its essence if devoid of its reasoning faculty. Given these premises, it should not be difficult to see how a vote cast without employment of full ratiocination cannot be identical with the voter’s will. For the same reason, a vote cast only through employment of the complete natural light of reason must unavoidably be identical with the voter’s will. If, therefore, the will be eternal, such a vote must necessarily be eternal too.

Now, the right of a citizen to vote is a power with force beyond doable imagination. A person’s vote has potential power to affect, negatively or positively, the voter himself, his contemporaries and the totality of posterity in ways that elude all comprehension. Such power being an individual’s right, therefore, the vote is one rare instance where a person’s will has an unusual opportunity to apply itself in an extraordinarily significant way. How one exercises this rare power, prudently and effectively or foolishly and wastefully, depends on their personal convictions and philosophy. Some, out of ignorance, pure folly or emotional impulse, will exercise it recklessly or indifferently, praying hard in the process that God, or the forces that be, favour the person they vote for with victory. When victory proliferates, they naturally rejoice. When defeat attends their voted candidate, however, great agony and regret abounds in their disposition. Others, on the other hand, conscious of the magnanimous value inherent in their vote, will meticulously exercise the right through relentless employment of the power of reason, and unwavering dodging of ignorance, folly and emotional impulse. The latter individuals are aware of the fact that, as absolute wills, they are a force of nature driven by unavoidable necessity to apply themselves fully. Upon ratiocinating fully, as to how they should vote and why, they proceed to cast a reasoned vote that reflects the essence of their will. Consequently, their core satisfaction only lies in how, as a necessary force of nature, they applied themselves fully to cast a reasoned vote, and not in the victory or defeat of their preferred candidate. In other words, it matters less to a reasoned voter whether the person they vote for wins or not.

Having stumbled upon the foregoing truths, it became peremptory upon my conscience not to cast an emotional vote this year; a vote void of the essence and substance of my will; a weak vote that has no sagacity and strength to stand on its own against faulty popular opinions. I will instead cast a vote that replicates the essence of me as a unique fully-fledged will. Man, an advanced will hardwired with an impressive reasoning faculty, can hardly accomplish anything perfectly without invoking his reasoning knack. My ultimate satisfaction shall accordingly lie purely in the indubitable fact that the “I” in me applied itself fully to the best of its ability by freely exercising a choice grounded in the natural light of reason; for it is only to such a degree that the gamut of my powers, as a reasoning individual, extends. Victory or defeat on the part of the one I vote for will have no effect whatsoever on my disposition or state of mind; for forces beyond my powers determine them, forces so mysterious and awe-inspiring that many have no choice but to term God. It should plainly be self-evident, however, that the “I” in me will equally share the prize of immortality and superiority with the forces that be, both having applied themselves fully within ranges of their powers. It is in this sweet truth alone that my satisfaction and totality of glee lie if I cast a reasoned vote.

Now, who, amongst this year’s front-line contenders, qualifies for my vote? The “I” in me, first, says there is only one test for pointing at who qualifies: true statesmanship. To trace the greater lineaments of a statesman’s character as it ought to exist, or must exist, in a state of society so complicated as that of Malawi – to mark out the ends at which a statesman must aim, and means whereby he must seek to accomplish them if he would earn for himself any substantive name or lasting esteem – to show how the powers of government may be most effectively employed to develop all the good tendencies of our age, and to subdue or mitigate its many corruptions – this, I say, would have been a task worthy of the highest intellect that I can afford but only in an extensive rendition in form of a book. In the present discourse, I shall only be contented with the definition of a true statesman in its purest form, which, despite its precision and truth, unfortunately may be misunderstood and sound disagreeable to many solely based on its extreme succinctness.

In my calculations, a true statesman is one who rules and governs according to a scientific principle for the best interest of the people he governs, whether according to law or against the law; and whether according to their will or against their will – as long as the end result of his rule serves the best interest of the people he governs. This definition may sound a bit abhorrent to religious adherents of tenets of rule of law and democracy. But an enlightened mind will at once detect the futility inherent in concepts of law and democracy. The law, no matter how carefully crafted, does not comprehend what is noblest and most just for all and therefore cannot always enforce what is best. The differences of human things do not admit of any universal and simple rule. No art whatsoever can lay down a rule that will last for all time. It is to this extent that there are times when the rule of law finds itself in circumstances where it negates the best interest of the people. A true statesman will, in such circumstances, aim at the best interest of the people and not the rule of law. The same misfortune is true with democracy, a context where worshipping the will of the people almost like a god is business of the day. The futility at the heart of democracy is apparent in the fact that, generally, the people are allowed to whine as they wish and to retract their will against their leader, on the basis of the leader’s actions or way of governing, even when the leader’s said actions or way of governing, despite causing a bit of temporary pain, are ultimately in or aimed at the best interest of the very people. A true statesman will, in such circumstances, aim at the best interest of the people and not their will. In that regard, a true statesman is like a physician: whether he cures us against our will or with our will, and whatever be his mode of treatment – incision, burning, or infliction of some other pain, - whether he practices out of a book, whether he purges or reduces in some other way, or even fattens his patients, is a physician all the same, so long as he exercises authority over the patients according to rules of art, if he only does them good and heals and saves them. Governing according to a scientific principle connotes command of comprehensive knowledge and philosophy of what amounts to best interest of the people and how the same can be achieved. Finally, governing with the sole aim of achieving the best interest of the people divests a true statesman of all self-interest. The presence or absence of self-interest and ignorance, as such, have always distinguished true statesmen from tyrants, or similar evils, amongst politicians.

So, how do this year’s leading edge presidential candidates (Mrs. Joyce Banda, Mr. Atupele Muluzi, Dr. Lazarus Chakwera and Professor Arthur Peter Mutharika) excel if tested through the criteria for my vote?

In my opinion, Mrs. Joyce Banda (JB) is no true statesman. JB is not difficult to analyse because I have seen her serve as State President for two years now. Apart from the usual and unhelpful average-politician’s promises, there is no insignia that a scientific principle backs her leadership. In this regard, I cannot agree more with Z Allan Ntata when he dubs JB’s government as “clueless.” Her government seems to have no clue about what amounts to best interest of the people and the modus operandi for securing the same. Instead, what is glaringly apparent is a very strong suggestion that the only item on her government’s agenda is self-interest. The cash-gate scandal alone is enough to back up the suggestion. A quick perusal through the media is enough to leave one with an appreciation of the public’s painful feeling about the strength of the likelihood of JB’s personal involvement in the scandal despite all the cover-ups. In my mind, if JB were a true statesman, the Cash-gate scandal alone was enough to warrant her resignation because the best interest of the people demands, in such circumstances, that she should resign. Self-interest is also evident in her apparent charitable works. To a discerning mind, it is not difficult to see how JB’s apparent charitable works of distributing maize and providing houses for the poor run contrary to the highest moral principle propounded by Jesus Christ himself, of whom everybody knows JB is a follower, in Matthews 6: 2-4, “So when you give something to a needy person, do not make a big show of it, as the hypocrites do in the houses of worship and the streets. They do it so that the people will praise them. I assure you, they have already been paid in full. But when you help a needy person, do it in such a way that even your closest friend will not know about it. Then it will be a private matter. And your Father, who sees what you do in private, will reward you.” Is it not axiomatic that JB’s apparently charitable works are a big show wherever she makes them and on MBC, the State owned television and radio stations? Between privacy and seeking people’s praise, what can an ordinary Malawian infer from such works? To the extent that JB does not execute her apparently charitable works in such a way that her closest friend will not know about them, I have the misfortune of inferring nothing but self-interest and people’s praise. Finally, apart from decisions on Omar al-Bashir and devaluation of the Kwacha in order to propitiate the donor community, such being decisions demanding no extraordinary art of true statesmanship, I have never seen any progressive activity on the part of JB’s government towards achievement of a radical goal in the best interest of the Malawi nation, which, as it often should be the case, runs against the law or the will of the people, and which JB has had to justify in a statesmanlike manner on grounds of best interest of the nation. This alone is a very strong indication, in my view, of worrisome paucity of a scientific principle behind JB’s leadership. I could have gone far to render an opinion on JB’s levels of education compared to other candidates and attempt to deduce conclusions with respect to her philosophical capacity. But in view of the foregoing considerations, such an effort would not be an economical use of the time resource. Accordingly, JB dismally fails to pass my test of true statesmanship and, as such, cannot win my vote.

Mr. Atupele Muluzi, in my view, is a very promising young and energetic ambitious leader with apparently very remarkable traits of a true statesman. Tolerably educated as a lawyer, the forceful young man hit his way to Parliament and subsequently flew over with palpable ambience to become Presidential candidate for his party, UDF. I have considerable levels of admiration for this man. I have no serious difficulties inferring the possibility of governing according to a scientific principle from his level of education and political experience. My only worry about Mr. Atupele Muluzi, however, is as to whether he could govern with the interest of the people unswervingly at heart. In that regard, I heavily fear the incidence of his age and his connection with Dr. Bakili Muluzi, his father and former State President of Malawi. As regards his father, history is replete with indications that Bakili Muluzi has an unstoppable yearn for power. This man sought to change our Constitution, with no apparent best interest of the people in view, as soon as his term of office was about to wind up. As if that was not enough, and with no apparent best interest of the people in view, he again sought to contest for Presidency in 2009, way after he had already served the maximum ten years term, and in the face of legal bars. Incredible ability in Bakili Muluzi to manipulate those he puts or helps put in power, is of great concern, in my opinion, in this context. Having handpicked Bingu to lead UDF in 2004, for instance, Bakili Muluzi still wanted to control the wheels of government from, as Bingu later put it, “the carrier behind,” by seeking to stage-manage Bingu. This trait in Bakili forced Bingu, while incumbent State President, to resign from UDF and form his own political party, DPP. I am strongly tempted to think that Bakili Muluzi has played a critical role in mapping out Atupele Muluzi’s political career. As such, the likelihood that Bakili could seek to manipulate his son, in the event that the son becomes State President, and that the son could succumb to the manipulation, in my view, is extremely high. Further, judging by historical precedent, the likelihood that such manipulation will not be in the interest of the people is not difficult to feel. As regards Atupele’s age, the possibility of clinging to power when his term of office elapses is an issue worth probing. If he becomes President this year, he is around 35 years, and assuming he serves the full 10 years term, our young man will be around 45 years when his term of offices completely expires. At 45 years, he will doubtlessly be very physically and politically energetic. Given the well-known tendency of power, that it corrupts, and given the likelihood of manipulation from his father, what are the chances that Atupele Muluzi at around 45 years old, when his legally acceptable period of office will have expired, might cling on to power at all costs? What is the likelihood that his clinging to power could not necessarily be in the best interest of the people? I have the unfortunate feeling of great fear that there is an enormous risk, given the foregoing considerations, that Atupele Muluzi might cling to power at the expense of best interest of the people. It is to this extent that, in my opinion, a presumption of true statesmanship in favour of Mr. Atupele Muluzi carries with it a high risk of being compromised. Atupele Muluzi loses my reasoned vote on that note.

Dr. Lazarus Chakwera is, in my estimation, a very impressive man. His holding of a PhD alone is enough for one to hazard a safe presumption in his favour that he is a man capable of designing a philosophical idea upon which he could govern according to a scientific principle. However, most worrisome is his perceptible lack of experience in active politics. This man has never even been a Member of Parliament before. For him just to move from being a very remarkable Pastor to becoming State President, to me, amounts to an excruciatingly dangerous experimentation with the art of statesmanship. The kind of danger involved, in my view, is one that Malawi is not ready to take and does not need to take, especially at a time when what she needs the most is real development and national advancement; and not experimentation with political ideas. It is doubtful in my mind if Chakwera, given scantiness of his political experience, could correctly appreciate the concept of best interest of the people. It is further doubtful if, in such circumstances, he could discern a situation where tenets of the law and democracy negate the best interest of the people. Even assuming that he commanded such discernment, which is disputed, I have grave doubts if he could manage to map out a workable method in such circumstances for pinning down the best interest of the people with as little risk of failure as possible. Accordingly, there are very high chances, in my opinion, that Chakwera may not yet be a true statesman. Dr. Lazarus Chakwera dismally fails to win my vote too on that note.

DPP’s Professor Arthur Peter Mutharika (APM) is a man who should lose my vote at once if I solely based it on emotional impulse. This man was once at the heart of a regime that, as fresh memories will show, employed brutal tactics against its very own citizens; rendered the economy ramshackle and had no shame in advancing purposeless tribalistic and nepotistic policies. I almost fell victim to DPP’s brutal tactics and had Bingu lived, only God knows if I would be alive today. Emotionally speaking, I have no kind words for DPP. An emotional vote, however, is exactly what I do not intend to cast this year. When I shed off my emotional impulses and instead engage the power of the natural light of reason in examining DPP’s APM, I see a colossal political figure in APM. He strikes me with feelings of awe akin to those that take grip of me when I am approaching a very huge mountain. To start with, he is not his brother, the late Bingu wa Mutharika, who almost everybody loathes. I have no doubt that their characters and temperaments cannot be identical. His academic qualifications, his professional career and his habits leave me with one unwavering inference: that this man is one buccaneer who could govern, in all probability, according to a remarkable scientific principle. In addition to having served as a member of Parliament and Cabinet Minister, he hammered his way up to become presidential candidate for his party, DPP. APM, a jurist of profound experience and soaring academic attainments, was also one of the key players in the drafting our current Constitution. From these considerations alone, I have no difficulties deducing a very strong presumption in his favour that he might, in all probability, command an undoubted capacity to discern what amounts to best interest of the people. In the same vein, I am stalwartly persuaded to conclude that APM could with little doubt command the ability to pin down the best interest of the people, whether in accordance with the law or against the law; and whether with the will of the people or against the will of the people, with as little risk of failure as possible. My calculations about his statesmanlike character, however, have one bump to tackle: his remarkable failures boldly written in his political career.  Two major ones quickly come to mind. First, APM failed the nation while he was Minister of Education over the UNIMA/Mukhito saga. He was very silent and left his despotic brother to pull the shots. Secondly, APM was replete with indiscretions amounting to an attempted coup after Bingu’s death. He ardently questioned whether JB, who had ceased to be a member of DPP, a party that ushered her into office as State Vice President, could automatically take over government after Bingu’s death. This was a question loaded with a genuine constitutional problem worth taking to Court for determination, but the circumstances smelled of self-interest more perhaps than best interest of the nation. However, just as every man, though he be the greatest genius, has very definite limitations in some one sphere of knowledge, and thus attests his common origin with the essentially perverse and stupid mass of mankind, so also has every man something in his nature which is positively evil. Even the best, nay the noblest, character will sometimes surprise us by isolated traits of depravity; as though it were to acknowledge his kinship with the human race, in which villainy—nay, cruelty—is to be found in that degree. In my opinion, a balance between APM’s failures and his actual potential, leave me with one conclusion: that his potential outweighs his failures so far. As regards the UNIMA/Mukhito saga, who knows whether APM had a brilliant idea to tackle the problem, an idea which perhaps Bingu deliberately thwarted because he did not like it, and hence APM’s silence? As regards the attempted coup, can it not be said with confidence that his drive to question establishments is one stroke of genius? Further, can it not be confidently said that the mere fact that APM bowed down to General Odilo is itself a good indication that APM is a man who can quickly discern a wrong path and amend his steps accordingly? Are these not traits of a true statesman? APM, in my fair opinion, is the only person amongst this year’s frontline contenders who has a strong appearance of being one coming closest to the ideal of true statesmanship. Unless calamity prevents him from contesting the race to State House, APM unequivocally wins my vote.

Epitome of the power it commands is the only befitting description of my vote this year. It will be a vote imbued with the true essence of my will; an unbridled act of a real and necessary force of nature: the “I” in me. It will be an immortal vote squarely fit to stand at par with immortal acts of the gods; a vote that qualifies to partake in privileges only meant for superior and divine forces behind all existence. It is in the immortality of my May 2014 vote alone that my ultimate satisfaction shall lie. Whether APM is visited with victory or defeat by the end of the day is not my fault, does not lie within my powers, is not my duty and is only the concern of God or the mysterious forces that iron out the minute processes of this life; and shall not have any impact whatsoever on my disposition or state of mind in any way whatsoever. The immortal vote I am casting this year is incapable of making me blissful or sad and regretful only based on the outcome of the elections.

MICHAEL 61 BILLION GOBA CHIPETA, the First.

10^th day of February 2014, BLANTYRE, MALAWI.

THE CASH-GATE SCANDAL CRACKDOWN – OPEN PRAYER TO GOD

Dear Heavenly Father,

Please forgive me if by this infinitesimal communiqué I unwarrantedly disturb Your Almighty’s holy attention to more imperative undertakings. I am tempted to believe, however, that my script ignites soaring levels of merriment in you because you knew (even before my grandmother, who gave birth to my mother, was born) that in the course of events, I would this day and this moment be having a tremendously brawny urge to etch this piece.

God, you already know every teensy weensy yoctoscopic detail about the cash-gate scandal waltzing through our country. No single penny filched and no single individual involved can escape the focus of your all-rounder eyes whose field of vision no form of secret can flee. Many Malawians and I, however, due to structural limits you deemed fit to impose on us for obvious practical reasons, are like chickens wandering in total darkness: the precise amount of the stolen public funds and the accurate gamut of those involved, both principals and accessories, are like a gorgeous picture perched on a wall in an unashamedly dark room. 

Government (Heavenly Lord, you have already read my mind and you know I use this word droopily to mean the President, her Ministers and other agents like the Police, ACB and FIU etc.) has initiated an incredibly awe-inspiring onslaught, which, to be fair with words, is replete with venerable ambience, to pummel the cash-gate scandal with justice. However, Lord, unlike to you, the situation to many Malawians and I is like an act of throwing a dice: we do not know whether, after it whirs around chaotically and unpredictably, the dice will ultimately settle down on a 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 or 6. Father, we do not know whether Government, which has invoked the crackdown, is also involved in the scandal and, if it is involved, whether it will aim the blitz on itself too and pull the trigger. 

Lord, if, in your immortal eyes, Government is clean, then it is my most profoundly felt humble prayer that you load gargantuan altitudes of blessings and success on Government and invigorate the crackdown to laudable fruition. In this case, Lord, Government is like your only begotten son, Jesus Christ, who at some point you sent to save humanity. However, if, in your vitally eternal eyes, Government is not dirt-free, then it is my most intensely felt unassuming prayer that you turn around the crackdown, smite down Government and chop it into pieces of ridicule that shall never taste the honour of reverence and adoration from us and the whole of posterity. In this case, Lord, Government is like a father who brutally reprimands his adolescent son for impregnating a girlfriend, when the said father cheats, not only on his wife, but also on all his extra-marital mistresses, and has extra-marital children calculatedly hidden from his wife. You have already read my mind, Lord, and I know you agree with me that, in the latter case, the cash-gate scandal crackdown should be the gravest immoral and depraved act a Government will ever have executed in the history of our Nation.

All glory and honour be unto you, O Lord! 

Yours truly, one of millions of your PRAYERFUL children,

MICHAEL 61 BILLION GOBA CHIPETA, senior. 

Amen!

ABOUT ME FIRST

INTRODUCTION

An account of oneself or another must necessarily be selective in its treatment of relevant substance because the life of a human being is an infinite array of occurrences that cannot precisely be mapped out bit by bit. Our condition, as human beings, has not improved enough: we still are under the plight of having no means to record perfectly every single minute of a person’s life. Largely, we are under the same old time misfortune of relying more on human memory, which is prone to forgetfulness, misrepresentation and misinterpretation. However, it must also be obvious that even if we had all the ideal gadgetry for putting on record every single occurrence in a person’s life, we nevertheless would never have the temerity to release such a record to the public willy-nilly because it might contain material contrary to the law and dictates of public policy. Accordingly, discourse about someone must necessarily be an adumbration of subjects wilfully and carefully selected.

EARLY LIFE AND FAMILY

I was born Michael Chipeta to a single parent on 21^st August 1982 at St. Michael’s Mission Hospital, Kaseye in Chitipa district. I am the last of three sons, Albert and Elton being the other two. (Mom adopted our little sister, Joetta, in 2005, a number of years after I had left for college. I believe she was caught unawares by the loneliness that creeps in when children leave your house some day to pursue their own lives). My mother, a Tumbuka from Cham’mono Village at Nkhomboli, T/A Mwalweni, Ntchenachena in Rumphi district (my home village), was a Home Craft worker at the hospital where I was born and she took my name from a signpost at the place that had a “St. Michael’s Mission Hospital” inscription on it. (The transmogrification of “Michael Chipeta” into “Michael Goba Chipeta” was executed at a later stage out of my own adolescent wisdom while in secondary school.) In 1983, Mom moved to Mzambazi Mission Hospital in Euthini, Mzimba district, where she worked up to late 1993. She then joined Embangweni Mission Hospital, first working at the hospital’s Mpasadzi (Newa) satellite clinic in Kasungu, before moving to Embangweni in 1997. I lived and grew up in those places.

My mother, Nita Chisambo, is a strict disciplinarian who owns her kids and will do anything to make sure they conform to her teachings so they can grow up into independent individuals who are not a hazard to society. Her philosophy is simple and four-pronged: education, reverence for God and other morals, hygiene and hard work. During my childhood days, she would descend on you with tangible ass-kickery if, for instance, you ran away from school or failed an exam, failed to go to church or used foul language or stole something, forgot to brush your teeth or take a bath and showed signs of laziness of any kind. Living with Mom in those days was not straightforward business at all: you had to be fully aware of the consequences of your actions a good lot of your whole day.

However, despite all that, she was our guiding spirit and an indispensable figure: she was that kind of person I never wanted to loose or allow anything harmful to happen or be done to her. She was aware of this trait in me and often used it to either control me in some way or just mock me for fun. For instance, she would deliberately talk about her dying or being bitten by a ferocious dog, fully knowing that I would inevitably break down into tears and, if I did, she, together with my brothers or anyone around, would giggle unremittingly.  One of her most unforgettable feats was the day she succeeded in permanently stopping me from bothering her with demands to be carried on her back as a kid. On this particular occasion, she carefully lifted me up and had me perched on her back with the usual motherly love and care. Then after walking a very short distance she suddenly, but deliberately, stumbled over something and pretended to fall down a bit violently, ultimately ending up in what appeared to be extreme agony due to her ‘broken backbone.’ I naturally felt extremely concerned. So when she subsequently told me that she would no longer be able to bear me on her back, now that her backbone was broken and she was in deep pain, I totally understood. Since that day, I never bothered her again with crying for her back.

Mom also made sure that we grew up with a sense of belonging by taking us to the village once every year in September. The thrill of village life in the company of my brothers and my cousins Chivwanda and his wife and children, Vitima, Agness, Jane, late Vai, my late aunt Sella and my late Grandma Vaina nyaChimhabi, is deeply unforgettable. My favourite village chore was herding goats: the fun was unfathomable. One morning, I was around seven years old then, I went out to the fields with the goats. One of the goats gave birth and, with the typical curiosity of a young boy, I witnessed the whole process. I was very excited and ran back home thereafter to report the good news to Mom and everyone else. I innocently explained everything I witnessed and how the new little goat came out. To my surprise, all the grown up women listening to my story were in shock, looking at each other in surprise and with no sign of excitement. It all ended up with Mom slapping me in my face in reprimand: she said I was too young to watch the poor goat give birth.

My sense of love, respect and admiration for Mom has intensified over the years because of the positive impact her wisdom has had on my siblings and I. She successfully managed to raise us up into independent individuals who are not a hazard to society. Her instincts and humble abilities will remain a lifetime marvel to me.

My brother Albert, the first-born, like all “first-borns,” had a controlling attitude and always wanted to be in command of things. Elton, the second-born, was full of betrayal: in all affairs amongst us kids, he would side either with Albert or with me at will. I remember one day, soon after having lunch, I became very critical about Albert’s supercilious attitude. The essence of my argument was that we all were entitled to equal shares of the best part of the meal and that it was painfully unfair for Al to have access to the best portions alone only because he was the eldest. I expressed this sentiment to Elton in confidence and he seemed to agree with me. However, Elton let the cat loose to both Al and Mom the next day and I had my ass extensively hammered for being disrespectful. Generally, as the youngest, I always bore the blunt of things. We, however, are grown up now with beautifully strong family ties. My family means everything to me.

CAREER THOUGHT

My career ideology has undergone perpetual mutation over time and is perhaps one veritable instance of what is believed by many to be the difference between human plans and God’s plan. When I was in Standard 1, for some reason, and of the entire world around me, the only people I felt had real jobs were labourers who worked along the main roads, cutting grass and clearing the roadways. So when asked about what I wanted to be in future, I readily said that I wanted to be a labourer of the kind just described. People would laugh their asses out, unsurprisingly. In later years of my primary school, and a good part of my early secondary school days, schoolteachers were much of an influence on me and I begun aspiring for a teaching career. However, my outlook about life rapidly changed during my secondary school education and my career thought underwent one more twist: I became so obsessed with science and decided I would pursue a career in either engineering or medicine. So after finishing my secondary school and upon qualifying for entry into the University of Malawi, I applied for engineering at The Polytechnic as my first option, agricultural engineering at Bunda College as my second option and Education (Science) at Chancellor College as my last option. The University authorities, in their absolute discretion, picked me up on the last option. Despite not having made it in engineering, a field in which I had the brawniest of all assiduousity, I was not dismayed because I now had a complete opportunity to realise my other dream of becoming a medical doctor.  Accordingly, when I went to Chancellor College to commence Education (Science) studies, I picked up courses that would enable me to go to College of Medicine.

One Sunday afternoon, during the early weeks of my first year in college, I was as usual working on my science stuff in the law section of the college library. Just out of curiosity, I dislodged a large law book from one of the many shelves in that section of the library: it had “Laws of Nyasaland” and other stuff emblazoned on its cover. I sat down and tried to peruse through its contents. I hardly finished reading a section labelled “Interpretations”: the language was too daunting my brain literally switched off and I started sleeping over the book. I shoved it away in haste and heavily wondered how someone would waste his or her time reading such material. Accordingly, towards the end of my first year, when an advert was posted by the law department requesting first years like me to apply for a course in law, I dismissed it at once as total waste of time. My heart and my soul were in for a career in medicine and nothing else.

About three weeks passed and the advert was still on the notice boards. One morning, on my way to the library, I saw it again and decided to reread it just for the heck of it. My curiosity was at me again: I carefully read the requirements for a person to qualify and noticed that I fitted in all of them; and I noted further that the deadline for applications was actually that very same day. Someone at the back of my mind then whispered and said, “What if we applied? After all there is no need to pay application fees and there is no special format for the application letter.” With a sarcastic smile full of jokes and mockery, I casually walked up the library, secured a table and chair, sat down and scribbled down the shortest of an application letter possible.  I folded the piece of paper into an envelope and had it delivered to the law department. The whole process took less than fifteen minutes. It did not take long before I totally forgot about the whole thing because it was not something I pursued with passion and enthusiasm.

About a month later, I had the first awakening when I heard full pronunciation of my name on the radio as one of those shortlisted to attend interviews for entry into law school. It seemed my jokes were purporting to take a shape I never anticipated. I was scared. How would I pursue a career reading unintelligible books that made you snooze? But an avalanche of authentic bolt from the blue erupted about three weeks later when, having attended the interviews just for the heck of it, I was selected into law school. It was time for real confusion because it meant quitting my passionately pursued dream of becoming a medical doctor and embarking on a career I had never dreamed of.

My mother had very strong bias towards me pursuing a medical career and when I broke the news about a career in law, she had a million reasons to discourage me. One of the funniest reasons she gave in support of her assertion against me going to law school was that, in as far as she was concerned, I would end up being a Judge and adjudicating on people’s cases needed a touch of witchcraft and wizardry if I were to survive. What made me laugh, and I still laugh a lot every single time I remember the moment, was the fact that she was so serious despite her reasoning being funny. My brothers, on the other hand, were particularly happy and encouraged me to go for it. With a little more encouragement from friends, I courageously took the giant leap of faith: I abandoned my passionate dream about a medical career and embarked on the spontaneously instituted law career.

Every time I look back at the path my career ideology has taken, I end up deeply wondering whether we alone are the masters of our destiny or whether there is some Force out there that absolutely devises our destiny or in conjunction with which we map out our destiny.

RELIGION

I am a deeply religious man and my religious creed, just like my career thought, has undergone considerable metamorphosis over time. My mother raised me up as a Christian of the CCAP (Church of Central African Presbyterian) church. The idea that God, who created everything and is unseen, was actually up there watching over us and reading every single one of our thoughts; and that after we die we will go up there and either be punished or rewarded by Him in accordance with our deeds, was enough to instil fear of and reverence for God in me. I accordingly strived to always pursue my life in such a way that I reap God’s maximum approval. This ideal saw me change church membership a number of times: I moved from CCAP and joined Assemblies of God before ending up in Holy Cross. During my third year in secondary school, I nearly joined the Seventh Day Adventist Church after reading Jan Marcussen’s “National Sunday Law.” But I did not because shortly afterwards I went back to CCAP after an equally forceful manuscript totally convinced me that no church would ever take a person to heaven more than his or her personal relationship with God.

As I grew up and started getting towards taking responsibility for my own life, many things started to make little or no sense at all. The theory of God as an overarching principle permeating through our lives, as per lessons taught by Mom and my church, on one hand, and life itself in practice, on the other hand, never seemed to have any meaningful link anymore. Questions like why do people suffer in many ways despite spending the whole lot of their energies trying to please God, and other similar questions, heavily lingered in my mind and I had no access to any meaningful answers.  I read a considerable amount of Christian commentaries, which, most frustratingly, only repeated the same ideas that never made good sense. Then by pure chance, after finishing my secondary school and just before going to college, I came across religious writings of Albert Einstein, which subsequently led me to the philosophies of Schopenhauer, Democritus, Francis of Assisi, Spinoza and Charles Haanel. I was particularly overwhelmed with awe at the degree to which these eccentrics expounded an idea of God that made complete sense to me. They espoused a concept of God that cleared all the mist overcrowding my mind about who God really was. For once I discovered a more sensible link between God, life and existence generally.

One remarkable discovery I made was that everything that the human race has done and thought is concerned with the satisfaction of deeply felt needs and the assuagement of pain. From this major premise, it became clear why religious movements over time have taken their respective paths and creed. In addition, the realization of the fact that the universe is a single significant whole brought to the fore the most sensible fact that an anthropomorphic God is not probable. I finally discovered that God, actually, is that one Intelligent Force with no human traits behind all existence, which, just like the wind, dogs, viruses, water and all creation, we are part of.

It is to this extent that I am profoundly religious and there is nothing in my religious philosophy that prevents me from associating with people having an idea of God different from my own. As such, the question “If that is your religious belief, why do you go to CCAP?” or any similar question, would be an invalid one.

POLITICS, LOVE AND MUSIC

I believe that politics is inevitable. Every single day I wake up and pursue my tasks, life in my country, Malawi, reminds me of the great potential lying at the heart of our country’s resources and its people, the ironic condition of lack and poverty pervading through the majority of our nation and just how there does not seem to be any one out there serious enough to do something meaningful about it. May be there is someone out there who can make a real difference? May be that someone is me? I have no doubt that a determined search for answers to such questions makes a serious pursuit of politics inevitable for me.

I also believe that to be of service to others is the greatest way of making a living; and that to have a loving spouse, bear children and raise them up into happy and independent citizens who are not a hazard to society, is the highest moral ideal a capable civilised person can ever accomplish.

Finally, I have a very strong passion for music. However, since the sensations that music can generate in a human being cannot properly be expressed in words by any means, no one can lay down a rendition of any considerable length on this particular aspect about me. I would, accordingly, wind up the whole discourse about me on that note.