When Second Vice-President Enock Kanzingeni Chihana spoke in Gaborone, he made an announcement that sounded close to a national miracle: hundreds of new schools and clinics for Malawi, prefabricated, equipped and ready to use. At the launch of the African Hero Foundation, organisers spoke of about 450 facilities. 100 clinics, 300 schools and 50 vocational training centres. On the surface it reads like instant relief for overcrowded classrooms and understaffed clinics. But the promise sits on top of a long-term deal that could bind Malawi to nearly two decades of payments to private companies. And the men and groups behind the offer bring records that have already prompted controversy in more than one country. Malawi’s Second Vice President Enoch Chihana and Botswana president Duma Boko ( in blue) The public narrative frames the initiative as a benevolent gift. Officials and promoters say the project will deliver the facilities with no upfront construction cost to the government. Funding is backed by South African businessman Zunaid Moti’s Moti Group in partnership with Indian conglomerate Jindal Power. That headline only tells part of the story. Beneath it lies a structure that could leave Malawi responsible for long-term rental, maintenance and operational costs obligations that may stretch far beyond the political value of the launch itself. A deal that is not free The African Hero model relies on prefabricated, modular units. Under the arrangement described in earlier proposals, the private companies build and retain legal ownership of the facilities while the host government signs a long-term lease. The state then pays recurring rental and maintenance fees over the life of the contract. In the version previously presented in Botswana, that period runs for 17 years. Only at the end of the term does ownership transfer fully to the state, unless the government pays extra to buy the facilities earlier. That structure matters. It means the project is not a free gift, despite the language used at the launch. Malawi would be taking on binding financial obligations that do not appear in the ceremonial announcement but would eventually land in future budgets. An artistic impression of the proposed prefabricated school. Governments often welcome private-sector involvement in public infrastructure. The difference between a useful partnership and a costly liability usually lies in the fine print. Here the key questions are not about whether schools and clinics are needed. They are about who pays, for how long, and under what conditions. The man behind the money Zunaid Moti is not a newcomer to scrutiny. His business dealings were examined in the 2023 #MotiFiles investigation by amaBhungane and The Sentry, which relied on leaked internal documents to explore political connections, financial transfers and influence in Zimbabwe’s mining sector. The reports raised questions about how Moti’s companies operated and how closely they appeared to move alongside political power. Moti and his firms rejected the findings. Zunaidi Moti He was also detained in Germany in 2018 at Munich Airport on an Interpol notice requested by Russia. That case related to a disputed mining transaction and a pink diamond. The warrant was later cancelled after legal challenges. Moti has denied wrongdoing in relation to those allegations as well. “ The INTERPOL clearance letter issued to Zunaid Moti on 2 November 2018. None of that automatically proves wrongdoing in the Malawi proposal. But it does help explain why the African Hero Foundation launch has drawn attention. Public infrastructure deals involve state liability, public trust and long-term consequences for taxpayers. When the main benefactor has already been the subject of international controversy, the burden of proof becomes heavier. Moti is not new to Malawi Zunaid Moti is already familiar with the corridors of power in Lilongwe. In early 2026, at the high-profile relaunch of the Beautify Malawi (BEAM) Trust the charity closely associated with First Lady Gertrude Mutharika Moti appeared as a special guest and publicly pledged K4 billion (approximately US$2.3 million at the time). Zunaid Moti (left) pledged K4 billion to Beautify Malawi (BEAM) Trust during the organisation’s strategic launch. The donation quickly drew scrutiny. Governance watchdogs, including the Centre for Democracy and Economic Development Initiatives (CDEDI), called for a forensic audit of BEAM, questioning the sources of the sudden multi-billion-kwacha inflow and whether donors might expect preferential treatment in return. Allegations later circulated that Moti had been granted around ten mining licences shortly after the pledge and that he had been quietly appointed Malawi’s Ambassador-at-Large claims the government firmly rejected. In a July 2026 statement, Chief Secretary to the Office of the President and Cabinet Justin Saidi dismissed reports of any diplomatic appointment or preferential treatment as “false, malicious and deliberately intended to mislead the public.” The government also stated that a moratorium on new mineral licences was in place and that no new licences had been issued since the current administration took office. Letter from the Malawi Government rejecting claims that Zunaid Moti had been appointed Ambassador-at-Large. Whether the K4 billion BEAM pledge was pure philanthropy or part of a broader relationship-building exercise, it established Moti’s presence in Malawi months before the African Hero Foundation launch in Gaborone. The sequence of a large donation to the First Lady’s charity, followed by questions about mining access and political proximity, and now a major infrastructure proposal involving Moti and Jindal has fuelled public scepticism about the true nature of the schools-and-clinics offer. Jindal Power’s record and the mining connection The other major partner, Jindal Power also carries a substantial record of controversy, much of it linked to coal mining and power generation in India. Naveen Jindal, Chairman of the group that owns and operates Jindal Power. Indian investigators have pursued the group over the long-running Coalgate affair. A Criminal Bureau of Investigation (CBI) chargesheet alleged irregularities in the allocation of the Gare Palma IV/1 coal block in Chhattisgarh, excess mining of about 3.72 million tonnes beyond approved limits, mining outside sanctioned coordinates, and related financial dealings. In July 2026 a Delhi court took cognisance of the chargesheet and summoned Naveen Jindal and others on counts including criminal conspiracy, criminal breach of trust and cheating under the Prevention of Corruption Act. The group has denied wrongdoing Separately, India’s National Green Tribunal found Jindal Power and Coal India’s South Eastern Coalfields guilty of environmental damage linked to mining and power operations in the Raigarh area. The tribunal ordered payment of roughly US$16.9 million for illegal mining, pollutant dumping, damage to groundwater and health impacts on local communities Naveen Jindal arriving at Patiala House Courts for the Coal Block Allocation case, in New Delhi. File These are not abstract historical footnotes. Both Moti and the Jindal group have deep roots in mining and extractive industries across southern Africa. Moti’s Moti Group has long been active in chrome, lithium and related minerals, particularly in Zimbabwe. Jindal has built a significant African footprint in coal mining and thermal power: the Mmamabula Energy Project in Botswana a large coal mine and power station complex, rehabilitation of Zimbabwe’s Hwange thermal plant under a multi-year concession, coal operations in Mozambique and South Africa, and related logistics. Their partnership in African Hero therefore sits inside a broader pattern of mining-linked capital seeking roles in regional infrastructure and resource deals. That context raises an obvious question for Malawi: when two players whose core businesses revolve around mining and heavy industry offer large-scale social infrastructure on lease-to-own terms, what other commercial interests may sit alongside the schools and clinics? The numbers behind the promise The scale of the promise is one reason the announcement has attracted attention. Officials have spoken of 450 facilities in total. Previous disclosures linked to similar pitches in Botswana offer a sense of the likely costs. In those documents a single clinic was valued at about 9.1 million pula (roughly US$668,000). A school was listed at about 36.4 million pula (around US$2.67 million). Using those figures as a guide, the capital value of 300 schools, 100 clinics and 50 vocational centres would already sit well above US$800 million even before lease payments are added. Once 17 years of rental, maintenance and operational charges are factored in, the total public exposure could climb past the one-billion-dollar mark. That is the part of the story most citizens do not hear at the launch. The project is presented as if it solves a financing problem. In reality it may simply move the burden into the future, where it becomes harder to track and easier to underestimate. Botswana rejected it The model is not new. Botswana previously examined a similar Moti-linked proposal. Finance officials rejected it because of the long-term fiscal risks. Their concerns were not about whether clinics and schools were needed. They were about the shape of the deal: opaque costs, heavy future liabilities and the bypassing of competitive public procurement. Botswana’s Permanent Secretary in the Ministry of Finance, Tshokologo Alex Kganetsano, confirmed that government sent back the investor’s proposal after raising concerns over its huge financial implications . https://www.mmegi.bw/news/govt-rejects-costly-moti-deal-prefers-open-bidding/news Instead, a different version went ahead. African Hero linked to Moti built the Duma Boko School and Clinic. They say it was paid for privately mainly by Jindal, with no cost or long-term debt for the government. It’s presented as a quick, modern test project. A photo bomb of Duma Boko School and Clinic, built by African Hero as a privately funded pilot project, reportedly backed mainly by Jindal, with no government funding or guarantee. That history matters for Malawi. A project that another government found too risky should not be accepted here on the strength of ceremony alone. After the Botswana pushback, the initiative was repositioned through the African Hero Foundation and presented as a wider regional development platform. In practice the shift appears to have given the project a more charitable image while preserving the basic commercial structure underneath. Jindal’s logos have appeared alongside African Hero at the Gaborone facilities, underscoring the commercial partnership. Why Chihana’s role is sensitive Second Vice-President Enock Chihana’s presence in Gaborone adds another layer. He was sent to represent President Arthur Peter Mutharika and spoke positively about the initiative’s potential to expand access to education and health services. Chihana himself is no stranger to controversy. In 2020 the High Court in Lilongwe ordered the sale of two of his vehicles after he failed to repay a K5 million informal loan that carried interest above 100 percent. He later said the money had been used for party nomination fees. That background does not make him incapable of representing government. It does, however, raise questions about the judgment involved in placing him at the centre of a sensitive infrastructure announcement with wide fiscal implications. The court ordered the surrender of two vehicles after Chihana failed to settle the loan arrangement. When a government sends a senior political figure with his own unresolved financial baggage to front a deal of this scale, it creates doubt about the vetting process. Was the initiative fully examined before the trip? Were the terms reviewed by Treasury or procurement authorities? Or was the public presentation allowed to outrun the paperwork? A familiar Malawian pattern Malawi has seen this kind of drama before. In 2022 the country was swept up in the Bridgin Foundation affair, when state officials celebrated a supposed US$6.8 billion grant for universities and energy projects. The money never came. What did come were hotel bills, travel costs and embarrassment. The episode exposed a weakness that remains relevant: the tendency to publicise major commitments before due diligence is complete. Bridgin Foundation fooled the Chakwera administration over its US$6.8 billion funding pledge. If Malawi is not careful it risks repeating the same mistake this time not with a fake grant, but with a contract that may be real, binding and expensive. The verdict so far For now the Gaborone launch looks less like a breakthrough than a promise in search of scrutiny. The project may eventually prove viable. It may even produce useful facilities. But none of that can be assumed from the ceremony alone. Malawi has been here before, and the country knows the cost of believing too quickly. If the African Hero proposal is to be more than another expensive fairy tale, the government will need to show the public the numbers, the contract, the full risk profile, and the complete picture of the commercial interests involved before any applause is deserved. Until then, the right question is not how many buildings were announced in Gaborone. It is how much Malawi may end up paying for them and what else may come with the deal. Post navigation Dear Mr President