Serious governance questions are now engulfing the Public Affairs Committee (PAC), with growing pressure from governance experts and sections of civil society demanding immediate elections amid accusations that the influential watchdog body is operating on an expired mandate and risking institutional illegitimacy.
At the centre of the storm is PAC's failure to hold an elective Annual General Meeting (AGM) for years despite constitutional expectations that leadership should periodically seek a fresh mandate from member organizations.
Critics now argue that the prolonged delay is not only damaging PAC's credibility, but also exposing what they describe as a dangerous contradiction for an institution that has historically positioned itself as Malawi's moral voice on governance, accountability, constitutionalism, and democratic order.
In exclusive interviews, governance experts warned that PAC risks undermining its own authority if it continues postponing elections while simultaneously preaching transparency and democratic accountability to others.
Keep up with the latest headlines on WhatsApp | LinkedIn
Governance analyst Dr. George Chaima said the organization urgently needs to comply with its constitutional obligations and allow members to elect new leadership.
"Electing a new board will restore PAC's legitimacy, process integrity, and alignment with governance standards," Chaima said.
He warned that continued delays could erode stakeholder confidence and weaken the organization's standing as one of Malawi's most influential civil society institutions.
Another governance expert, Dr. Ben Dzolowere, said globally accepted corporate governance principles demand regular, transparent, and procedurally compliant elections.
"These processes are guided by clear standards -- proper notice periods, quorum requirements, secret ballots, and conflict-of-interest safeguards. Ignoring such principles exposes institutions to legal disputes, regulatory intervention, and reputational damage," Dzolowere said.
He argued that international governance frameworks such as the OECD Principles and South Africa's King IV governance code emphasize fairness, transparency, accountability, and disclosure as non-negotiable pillars of institutional governance.
"In this case, PAC must operationalize these governance principles instead of appearing to selectively apply constitutionalism when convenient," Dzolowere observed.
The criticism comes as PAC leadership faces mounting accusations that it is using procedural arguments and technical reviews to prolong its stay in office years after its mandate allegedly expired.
The situation has triggered uncomfortable public questions: How can PAC demand accountability from politicians, government institutions, and public officers while appearing unable -- or unwilling -- to subject itself to timely democratic renewal?
PAC Executive Director Robert Phiri, however, dismissed accusations that the institution is operating unlawfully or that current leaders are clinging to power.
In an interview, Phiri insisted that trustees acted within the provisions of the PAC Constitution when they extended the mandate of the Executive Committee.
He said PAC will soon convene a Board of Trustees meeting to determine the date and roadmap for the long-awaited AGM.
According to Phiri, trustees invoked constitutional provisions allowing the current leadership to continue operating in the absence of a newly elected Executive Committee.
"In the event that a new Executive Committee is not in place, the existing committee shall continue to transact business for the sake of PAC continuity," Phiri said, citing Article 15.4 of the PAC Constitution.
He further argued that trustees, as legal custodians of the institution, exercised their powers lawfully under Articles 4.1.10 and 6.5 of the constitution.
"Trustees resolved to extend the Executive Committee's mandate. Therefore, the extension is legal and constitutional," Phiri maintained.
But despite those explanations, critics argue that legality alone does not settle the deeper governance and ethical concerns surrounding the prolonged delay.
Observers note that PAC's moral authority has historically rested not merely on legal technicalities, but on its reputation as a principled defender of democratic values, accountability, and constitutional order.
Phiri admitted that PAC identified governance gaps requiring urgent review before elections could proceed, including unresolved issues surrounding admission of new members and strengthening the institution's code of conduct.
"Previous elective AGMs failed to admit new members and did not review the Code of Conduct. Technically, it is prudent to resolve these issues comprehensively rather than piecemeal," he said.
He also denied claims that members of the Executive Committee are deliberately resisting leadership transition.
Sign up for free AllAfrica Newsletters
Get the latest in African news delivered straight to your inbox
"No Executive Committee member is clinging to power. Trustees made the decision in line with their constitutional powers," he said.
Yet for many observers, the explanations are doing little to silence growing public discomfort over what is increasingly being viewed as a governance credibility crisis inside one of Malawi's most vocal accountability institutions.
The six-year delay in reconstituting leadership is now emerging as a major stain on PAC's image, with critics warning that every additional postponement deepens perceptions of hypocrisy, institutional stagnation, and selective constitutionalism.
Analysts argue that unless PAC urgently holds transparent and credible elections, the organization risks weakening its public legitimacy and surrendering the moral high ground it has enjoyed for decades.
For an institution that has repeatedly demanded constitutional discipline from State actors, political parties, and public officials, many Malawians now believe the spotlight has firmly shifted onto PAC itself.
And the uncomfortable question continues to grow louder: if PAC cannot practice the democratic principles it preaches, with what moral authority can it continue lecturing the nation on governance and accountability?
