By Burnett Munthali
Dickson Kashoti is not a veteran journalist as he claims or as others attempt to portray him.
He is, in reality, a long-serving MCP propagandist whose writings for the past five years have consistently advanced the political interests of the Malawi Congress Party rather than the interests of balanced journalism.
For the entire period between 2020 and 2025, Kashoti devoted his energy to defending MCP leadership more passionately than many party officials themselves.
The only time he ever criticised the MCP was when Vitumbiko Mumba’s reckless conduct triggered diplomatic tension with Tanzania, leading to a temporary closure of trade routes—an embarrassment so severe that even MCP loyalists struggled to justify it.
That moment of criticism was not an act of journalistic independence but a reluctant admission of a diplomatic scandal that could not be spun away.
It is an open secret within Malawi’s media community that Kashoti was formally on the MCP payroll from 2020 until September 16, 2025.
His contract ended immediately after Chakwera lost the elections, leaving him without financial sponsorship, without institutional backing, and without relevance in the post-election political landscape.
In his latest article attacking President Mutharika, Kashoti advances arguments that are emotionally driven, constitutionally hollow, and politically motivated.
He suggests that Malawi’s two vice presidents should share equal responsibilities and even implies that institutions such as DoDMA and M’belwa University should be overseen jointly, as if constitutional mandates can be duplicated by political wishful thinking.
This position is not rooted in any legal or constitutional framework.
According to Section 79 of the Constitution of Malawi, the Vice President performs “such functions and responsibilities as may be assigned by the President,” which clearly places the authority of delegation entirely in the hands of the President.
The Constitution does not prescribe equal roles, shared mandates, or identical portfolios for multiple vice presidents.
It instead empowers the President—as Head of State and Head of Government—with full discretion to allocate duties in a manner that ensures effective governance and administrative coherence.
Kashoti fails to cite even a single constitutional provision to back his argument.
He also provides no legal precedent, no administrative rationale, and no policy reference to justify his claim that executive responsibilities must be equally distributed between the vice presidents.
His narrative is therefore not a constitutional argument but a partisan lamentation.
It is an emotional appeal designed to portray President Mutharika as biased, even though the Constitution is explicitly clear that the President has sole authority to assign and structure the duties of vice presidents.
It is legitimate to ask where Dickson Kashoti is getting this complaint from.
His argument does not reflect the position of the Office of the Second Vice President, nor does it represent any official concern within government structures.
Instead, it reflects the bitterness of a defeated MCP faction still struggling to accept its rejection by Malawians in the 2025 elections.
Kashoti’s writings have never been balanced.
They have consistently sided with MCP positions while attacking DPP and the Blue Alliance at every opportunity.
It is only recently that he applauded President Mutharika for his merit-based cabinet and commended Vice President Jane Ansah for her professional approach—but even then, the praise was minimal and tactical.
His body of work over the last five years cannot be mistaken for journalism.
It is propaganda authored by a partisan operative who lost both relevance and financial patronage when MCP left power.
Kashoti’s latest article is not the product of veteran journalism.
It is the frustrated voice of a wounded propagandist trying desperately to remain politically relevant.
