Allow us to start our conversation with the news that Parliament has approved the national budget amid rising costs of living, fuel shortages, and conflicts. While we applaud Parliament for fulfilling this important and noble responsibility, we need to reflect a bit on whether the budget truly reflects the realities on the ground.
We are particularly worried that a huge portion of the budget allocated to servicing loans has already been taken. The government should clearly demonstrate what these loans have delivered in tangible terms. We should all be very worried about the growing debt burden. If we fail to prioritise debt reduction, we risk remaining trapped in poverty for generations.
A new coalition on debt management has recently been established to support the government in addressing this challenge. However, it does seem that as a country, we have a persistent appetite for borrowing. New debts continue to accumulate, with repayment obligations maturing at different levels. We also need to reflect on how the approved budgets are actually being utilised in Malawi. Are we really managing the resources effectively? Do our Ministries, Departments, and Agencies (MDAs) receive the funds allocated to them in the budgets? Do our Members of Parliament have adequate oversight to know whether these funds are being remitted as planned?
We have reviewed the 2026/27 National Budget through a youth lens and wish to provide an important snapshot of key observations. The budget strongly focuses on macroeconomic stabilisation and economic recovery while prioritising sectors like agriculture, mining and tourism. We do appreciate that these sectors have the potential to create jobs. However, we feel that there are limitations in addressing various youth-specific challenges like high unemployment, the barriers they face in entrepreneurship, and of course, a mismatch that exists between the skills young people have and available economic opportunities.
The budget appears to assume that young people will automatically benefit from economic growth but does not sufficiently invest in targeted youth empowerment programmes to make this a reality. While the MK 2 billion Youth Innovation Fund is a welcome step, we feel that the amount is inadequate considering the high level of youth unemployment in the country. Questions also remain about access and sustainability. Who will truly benefit from the fund? How will the fund be sustained over time? Will the youth in rural areas, young people with disabilities and other vulnerable youth groups have equitable access to these resources?
We note the continued policy of free primary and secondary education, which will certainly improve access. However, we must ask whether quality will be maintained. If not managed carefully, free education risks placing an unsustainable strain on public financial resources.
We commend the government for allocating funds to the national internship programme, even though the amount appears modest relative to the number of graduates requiring such opportunities. The removal of taxes on tools and equipment for technical and vocational colleges is a well-thought-out policy direction that should lead to improved quality of technical and vocational education and enhance skills acquisition. We therefore recommend (a) increased funding for youth programmes, (b) deliberate financing towards entrepreneurship and ensuring youth participation in CDF and other local development initiatives.
April 1, 2026, marked the beginning of a new month and a new quarter. We have finished the first three months of the year, and it is important to pause, reflect, and assess what we have achieved so far. We need to seriously reflect on our goals for the period and ask ourselves whether we have achieved them. If our goals were about gossip, have we achieved the gossip? One thing that is derailing our operations is the unfounded gossip at various levels in the country. There are a lot of unfounded stories, which, by the time we realise it, have wasted our time arguing and fighting instead of achieving the goals.
Combining localisation and accountability to the Affected Population (AAP) remains critical yet a challenging agenda. This is because both concepts speak to power dynamics in the development sector. The Grand Bargain of 2016 highlighted the need to move resources closer to the people and focused on shifting the power. Local actors are immediate responders in crises. Unfortunately, we all know that power is enticing, and asking development partners and INGOs to shift the power is like asking them to swallow stones.
In practice, the rhetoric of localisation is frequently undermined. Issues of “lack of capacity” and “weak systems” are often cited as reasons to sideline local actors. Ironically, when local organisations adopt systems and procedures from INGOs and customise them, these are sometimes rejected. One wonders whether it is about the system or the origin of the organisation. Meanwhile, international organisations have found a niche in organisations that cannot hold them to the standards they have committed to.
Meanwhile, many organisation including UN agencies, have signed up to the Grand Bargain, the Charter for Change and more recently, the PLEDGE. As signatories, they are expected to champion localisation and its core principles, including equitable partnership. The question remains: does genuine equitable partnership exist in practice?
Have a blessed April 2026.
