Yusuf Investments objects Amaryllis probe…says Committee lacks jurisdiction on private entities

As part of their submission, Yusuf Investments, owners of the controversial Amarylis Hotel have objected to the jurisdiction of the Parliamentary Accounts Committee (PAC) currently probing its controversial sale by the Public Service Pension Fund (PSPF) citing lack of jurisdiction over a private entity.

Yusuf Investment legal counsel Gabriel Kambale wrote the committee of its objection citing two fundamental grounds.

“At the outset, and with the greatest respect to this Honourable Committee, I rise to move a preliminary objection on two fundamental grounds:• First, that this Committee lacks jurisdiction over Yusuf Investment Limited; and• Second, that the scope of the inquiry, as framed in your letter of 10th April 2026, is ultra vires your statutory mandate,” reads the notice in part.

Kambale noted that the Committee’s mandate is confined to the public finance oversight saying the Public Audit Act, specifically Sections 18 (Purposes and objectives of the Committee),Section 19 (Functions of the Committee) and Section 20 (Powers of the Committee) if read holistically, one principle emerges with clarity thus the mandate of the committee is confined to oversight of public expenditure, public money and public resources.

“Every function assigned to this Committee is anchored in the examination of audited public accounts, the scrutiny of Government financial management and the accountability of Ministries, statutory bodies, and entities controlled by Government.”

“There is no provision—express or implied—that extends this mandate to the regulation or investigation of private commercial entities acting in their own capacity. Yusuf Investment Limited is such a private entity, it is not a public body and it is not an entity controlled by Government. It is not subject to audit by the Auditor General; and it is not entrusted with the administration of public funds. On that basis alone, jurisdiction of this Committee does not arise,” said Kambale.

The lawyer also noted that Standing Order 173(4) provides that deliberations of the committee shall be confined to its jurisdiction.

“Standing Orders are purely procedural and cannot enlarge substantive jurisdiction. They derive from, and remain subordinate to, the Constitution and the Public Audit Act; they regulate how powers are exercised, not whether they exist. Jurisdiction is conferred only by law, and no internal rule can extend it to persons or matters beyond that mandate.”

“Any attempt to rely on Standing Orders to compel disclosure from a private entity absent a clear statutory nexus to public funds is ultra vires and unlawful. To hold otherwise would collapse the distinction between rule-making and law-making and expose private actors to unbounded inquiry. The Committee must therefore act strictly within its statutory remit, and any excess should be restrained.”

“In other words, the powers to summon ‘any person’ in the Standing Orders must mean any person relevant to a matter properly within your lawful mandate and it cannot be read as a licence to conduct general inquiries into private affairs. If it were otherwise, this Committee would possess unlimited investigative authority over any private citizen or company in the Republic, without statutory safeguards. That cannot be the law,” said Kambale.

Kambale also said the committee is focusing on a ‘wrong target’.

“If there are concerns arising from the transaction involving the Public Service Pension Fund, then the law is clear as to where accountability lies. It lies with the public institution itself (that is if you label it (‘public’); its officers and decision-makers; and its management of public funds. That is the proper and lawful focus of this Committee’s inquiry. Yusuf Investment Limited, by contrast, is merely a private counterparty.”

“To subject it to direct parliamentary investigation would collapse the distinction between public oversight and private autonomy and expose all private actors dealing with Government to open-ended and intrusive scrutiny. Such a position would have far-reaching and unintended consequences for commercial certainty and investment,” added Kambale.

He also warned of the committee’s invitation of Yusuf Investments Limited’s bankers, National Bank of Malawi (NBM) plc to the inquiry saying it can expose the Bank to significant legal liability.

“Yusuf Investment has also heard that you have invited National Bank of Malawi, bankers of YIL. As stated above, there is no statutory framework under the Public Audit Act that authorises this Committee to compel disclosure of material from private entities like NBM. If you do not have such authority, any attempt to do so would be an unlawful intrusion into rights and interests.”

“For instance, if NBM comes here and discloses information which is prejudicial to YIL, that will not only expose them to significant legal liability but will also erode the confidence that right-minded business persons place in the bank, because it would signal that confidential banking relationships may be compromised without lawful basis, thereby undermining the very foundation of trust upon which the banking system depends,” said Kambale.

However, Kambale argues that a private entity cannot be engaged at all, saying where such engagement occurs, it must be incidental to a lawful inquiry, strictly necessary for understanding public expenditure and narrowly tailored in scope.

“What is impermissible is what has been sought for here—a generalised demand for documents and financial disclosures amounting to a full inquiry into private commercial operations. That crosses the line from oversight into overreach. This objection is not raised to frustrate accountability. It is raised to preserve the proper boundaries of lawful authority.”

“The powers of this Committee are significant and vital to public accountability. But they are not without limit. To act beyond those limits would not strengthen oversight—it would undermine the rule of law upon which that oversight depend