By Ali Gunde.
Lilongwe, 29 September 2026 — The Lost History Foundation (LHF) on Tuesday appeared before the Parliamentary Committee on Legal Affairs to present its position on the use of Malawi’s indigenous languages in parliamentary proceedings.
At the heart of LHF’s submission was a simple question: Why should Malawi conduct its highest public business predominantly in a language that most Malawians do not speak at home?
LHF argued that language is more than a means of communication. It carries people’s knowledge, memory, values and identity. The continued dominance of English in Parliament, it argued, reinforces the perception that English is the language of authority and advancement while indigenous languages occupy a subordinate position.
LHF stressed that its position is not anti-English. Rather, it wants English to stand alongside Malawi’s indigenous languages rather than above them.
LHF linked the language question to dignity, self-determination, development and decolonisation. It pointed to the use of indigenous languages in religious life, the constitutional protection of language and culture, and examples from other countries where multiple languages are accommodated in public institutions.
LHF also argued that cost should not be used to dismiss linguistic inclusion. It noted that local languages are already used in Malawi’s broadcasting sector and that Members of Parliament and witnesses have used local languages alongside English during parliamentary proceedings, including the inquiry into the Chikangawa Plane Crash of 10 June 2026.
LHF called on Parliament to adopt local languages, consider restoring the name chiNyanja for chiChewa, provide interpretation for other indigenous languages, and incorporate sign language into parliamentary proceedings.
The controversy over what LHF wore
The presentation, however, did not go without controversy.
The LHF delegation deliberately chose to appear before Parliament in African print and kaftans rather than Western suits and ties.
The decision was informed by an earlier experience. According to LHF, in 2024 one of its researchers was removed from a parliamentary committee for appearing in African print rather than a Western suit and tie and was accused of violating Parliament’s Standing Orders.
Determined not to repeat that experience, LHF wrote to the Chairperson of the Legal Affairs Committee on Monday, 28 September, informing the Committee in advance that its delegation would attend in African attire.
In the memorandum, LHF argued that the dress provisions in Standing Order 236 apply specifically to Members of the National Assembly, while its delegation had been invited as visitors. It also pointed out that the Standing Orders themselves recognise traditional dress as acceptable formal attire for female Members.
LHF therefore asked the Committee to ensure that its delegation would not be prevented from entering Parliament or required to change its clothing based on the Members’ dress code.
The symbolism was difficult to miss.
LHF was entering Parliament to argue that Malawi’s indigenous languages should not be treated as inferior to English, while its delegation simultaneously challenged the assumption that participation in the country’s highest institutions must be expressed through Western dress.
For LHF, both issues speak to a larger question: What should a postcolonial African Parliament look like—and what should it sound like?
Tuesday’s presentation therefore became more than a submission on language policy. It was also a statement about cultural identity, dignity and the unfinished conversation about decolonisation in Malawi.