MRCS member contests election outcome over alleged procedural and integrity failures

By Ephraim Mkali Banda

A member of the Malawi Red Cross Society (MRCS), Collins Mtika, has formally appealed the dismissal of his petition challenging the election of Susan Thindwa as Council Member for the Mzuzu Division, citing serious procedural irregularities and breaches of the Society’s new electoral rules.

Established by an Act of Parliament in 1966, MRCS is Malawi’s national Red Cross society and became a full member of the international Red Cross and Red Crescent network in 1971.

Today the Society maintains a presence across all 28 districts, with 33 Divisions and thousands of volunteers, making it one of the nation’s most far-reaching humanitarian organizations.

MRCS’s work spans disaster response, community health, water, sanitation and hygiene (WASH), livelihood support and public health outreach, roles that have become ever more critical in recent years as Malawi grapples with frequent disasters, disease outbreaks and deepening poverty.

In 2025, as part of its annual fundraising efforts, MRCS launched its “Flag Week” campaign aiming to raise MK 200 million to fund disaster response, blood donation drives, first aid and broader humanitarian operations.

Given MRCS’s central humanitarian role and wide public footprint, and with high expectations from donors, partners and communities, governance, transparency and internal accountability are especially important.

According to his appeal, filed on 27 October 2025, Mtika’s petition alleged that Ms Thindwa had misused over MK 300,000 collected during the 2025 Flag Week, funds intended for MRCS humanitarian operations.

Under the Society’s newly adopted 2025 electoral rules (the “MRCS Election Policy, May 2025”), candidates who owe money to the Society at the time of nomination are disqualified from contesting.

Mtika argues Ms Thindwa was therefore ineligible under Annex 3 of the policy.

Beyond the alleged debt, the petition claimed her conduct contravened the principle of voluntary service, a core Red Cross value that prohibits exploitation of MRCS funds for personal gain.

However, when the Ad Hoc Elections Committee issued its decision on 19 November 2025, it dismissed the petition, reportedly on the basis that there had been no formal disciplinary finding against Ms Thindwa by the National Council under Article 18(4) of the MRCS Constitution.

The committee concluded, therefore, that the debt allegation alone did not warrant rejection.

In his appeal, Mtika challenges the committee’s interpretation. He asserts the decision was “procedurally ultra vires”, contradicting Clause 9.2 of the 2025 Election Policy, which requires a full investigation and hearing where there are credible allegations.

The committee’s summary dismissal, without investigation or allowing Mtika to present evidence, violated the principles of natural justice, he argues.

“The eligibility rules are preventive, not punitive,” Mtika wrote. “They exist to protect the integrity of MRCS leadership, not to wait for misconduct to be formally confirmed.” He calls for:

• the nullification of Ms Thindwa’s election;
• a temporary suspension of her position pending a proper investigation; and
• the establishment of a new, impartial Elections Petition Committee to re-examine the evidence.

Observers within MRCS and external partners say the dispute points to deeper questions about governance, transparency and internal oversight at one of Malawi’s oldest and most significant humanitarian organisations.

• MRCS depends heavily on public donations and volunteer commitment. Allegations that a senior council member may have misused funds undermine the core humanitarian principle of voluntary service and could erode donor and public trust, which is already fragile in a context where many organisations face scrutiny.
• The dispute arises at a moment when MRCS is scaling up operations — including disaster response, WASH initiatives and community health programmes across the country. For such large-scale operations, robust internal accountability mechanisms are critical to ensure money and resources reach intended beneficiaries, not be diverted.
• The 2025 Election Policy represented an attempt to modernise MRCS’s internal governance, embedding preventive eligibility criteria to guard against financial mismanagement. If the challenge succeeds, it could set a precedent ensuring stronger oversight and deter future misconduct. If it fails, critics warn that it may weaken checks on leadership credibility.

At the moment of writing, MRCS has not yet issued a public response to Mtika’s appeal.

Should the Society ignore or delay a proper investigation, the controversy risks losing public confidence, particularly among donors, volunteers and communities who rely on MRCS’s services.

On the other hand, launching an independent and transparent review could help restore confidence, but only if MRCS leadership is seen to act without bias.

Experts inside and outside the humanitarian sector say this could also be an opportunity for MRCS to strengthen internal governance and reinforce its commitment to accountability, volunteerism and ethical stewardship of donor funds.