Where is the truth on K780bn fertiliser deal with Sheikh Ahmed Al-Qassimi? Malawians stuck in confusion
The controversial K780 billion fertilizer deal, allegedly orchestrated by Sheikh Ahmed Al-Qassimi, is now mired in confusion and growing suspicions, with government officials unable to provide clear answers on its status. The deal, which was initially touted as a legitimate agreement to help Malawi’s struggling agricultural sector, has raised more questions than answers, and has been the subject of intense scrutiny in recent weeks.
The deal, which reportedly involves the purchase of 600,000 tonnes of fertilizer (300,000 tonnes of Urea and 300,000 tonnes of NPK), would require Malawi to pay a 100% upfront fee for each consignment. According to a letter from the Smallholder Farmers Fertiliser Revolving Fund of Malawi (SFFRFM) to the Secretary for Agriculture, the government would need to make payments of around K32.5 billion per consignment of 25,000 metric tonnes. The total cost for the entire 600,000 metric tonnes would amount to K780 billion.
The massive upfront payment requirement has raised concerns, with critics questioning why the Sheikh would demand such a large sum before delivering the fertilizer. “SFFRFM does not currently have the financial capacity to handle these huge cash cover requirements,” said Richard Chikunkhuzeni, Chief Executive Officer of SFFRFM, in the letter. The letter also called for government support to help recapitalize the organization in order to manage such a large transaction.
The deal, which was initially praised by government officials as a legitimate partnership with the Sheikh’s office in the United Arab Emirates, quickly came under scrutiny after reports surfaced questioning the authenticity of the Sheikh’s identity and the terms of the agreement. The government responded by issuing a statement that was purportedly from the Sheikh’s office, which was published in The Daily Times and widely circulated on social media.
However, as more questions about the deal’s legitimacy have emerged, government officials have been unwilling or unable to provide clear answers. When the Parliamentary Committee on Agriculture sought clarification from Chikunkhuzeni, he referred the matter to the Ministry of Agriculture for further direction. “We sent our letter to the Secretary for Agriculture for review and direction, but we haven’t received a response,” Chikunkhuzeni told the committee.
Efforts by the media to get answers from senior officials, including the Secretary for Agriculture Medrina Mloza Banda, have also been met with evasiveness. Mloza Banda avoided questions during the committee meeting, and when approached for an interview afterwards, she declined to comment. Further attempts to get a response from the Ministry of Agriculture have proven futile, as officials continue to pass the issue from one department to another.
The lack of transparency has prompted civil society organizations, such as the Centre for Social Accountability and Transparency (CSAT), to raise alarm. “Why is it that no one wants to take ownership of this deal when Malawians were told it was legitimate?” asked Willy Kambwandira, Executive Director of CSAT. “The silence from government officials only deepens our suspicion that this was never a legitimate business agreement. We demand accountability.”
Adding to the confusion, the Secretary to the President and Cabinet, Colleen Zamba, signed the deal on behalf of the Malawian government. When approached for comment through her spokesperson, Robert Kalindiza, the response was blunt: “I have no idea.”
The Parliamentary Committee on Agriculture, led by Sameer Suleman, has expressed frustration with the lack of answers from both SFFRFM and the Ministry of Agriculture. “Based on the testimony of officials who appeared before our committee, it’s clear that even the SFFRFM’s chief lacks control over the situation,” said Suleman. “We plan to summon the Minister of Agriculture to appear before the committee and provide clarity on the matter. Malawians are fed up with being taken advantage of through these questionable fertilizer deals.”
As the controversy continues to unfold, the future of the K780 billion fertilizer deal remains uncertain. With government officials failing to provide satisfactory answers and mounting public pressure for transparency, the situation is set to become a key issue in upcoming parliamentary sessions. The public, civil society, and opposition parties are all calling for greater scrutiny of this deal, demanding that those responsible be held accountable for any mismanagement or corruption.
