The leaked WhatsApp exchange between Simplex Chithyola Banda and Gerald Kazembe is more than political gossip. It is a troubling signal about the state of the Malawi Congress Party at a time when unity should be its greatest strength.
In the messages now circulating widely, Chithyola distances himself from an alleged memo said to have been written to party president Lazarus Chakwera. He insists he refuses to be dragged into the matter, saying he is human, that he feels pain, and that politics should not force anyone to act against their will. The tone is defensive but measured. He appeals to respect.
Kazembe’s reply is anything but measured. He bluntly tells Chithyola: “You authored that silly letter, you’re only denying it now because it has leaked.” He goes further, saying the letter carries Chithyola’s “handwriting and lack of wisdom all over it.” In frustration, he even declares that Chithyola may strip him of committee allocations if he wishes — he does not care.
These are not the words of junior members. These are senior figures in the same party, publicly tearing into each other. The substance of the dispute is serious. The alleged memo reportedly warned Chakwera that some senior officials — including Richard Chimwendo Banda, Dr. Mcbride Nkhalamba, Major Msonthi and others — were positioning themselves to dislodge him from leadership. If true, it suggests deep mistrust at the top. If false, it suggests dangerous paranoia. Either way, it reveals a party wrestling with itself.
One cannot ignore the political backdrop. Chakwera singlehandedly handpicked Chithyola as Leader of Opposition. That decision was within his powers, but it was also read by many as a signal about internal alignments. In a party already divided into camps before the 2025 elections, such decisions inevitably sharpen perceptions of favour and exclusion. The current quarrel did not start with a leaked memo. The memo merely exposed what was already simmering.
The real danger here is not whether Chithyola wrote the letter or whether Kazembe overreacted. The real danger is the normalization of open hostility at the top. When leaders exchange insults instead of ideas, they weaken the moral authority of the institution they represent. When senior officials accuse each other of lacking wisdom, they do not only attack individuals — they attack the credibility of the party itself.
History offers a clear warning. Parties rarely fall because of external enemies alone. They fall because internal divisions drain their focus and fracture their message. MCP has experienced painful moments in the past where internal wrangles cost it dearly. If it lost power before, it was not only because of opponents; it was also because of unresolved divisions and competing ambitions.
A house divided against itself cannot stand. That principle is not religious poetry; it is political reality. If suspicion, succession politics and factional loyalty continue to overshadow collective purpose, MCP risks walking a familiar and dangerous path. Supporters do not rally behind a party that appears at war with itself. Voters do not entrust power to leaders who cannot manage their own house.
This moment demands restraint, dialogue and maturity. It demands that private grievances be handled privately, and that leadership disagreements be resolved through structures, not social media exchanges. Above all, it demands clarity of purpose. Is MCP preparing to rebuild and strengthen itself, or is it rehearsing the very divisions that once weakened it?
When leaders turn on each other, the party bleeds. And unless the bleeding is stopped, the wound deepens.
