A Critical Review of the Commission of Inquiry into the Plane Crash: Has Justice been Truly Served?
Nthambi Nthambi comments on Commission of Inquiry report]
On June 10, 2024, a tragic plane crash claimed the life of Malawi’s late Vice President, Dr. Saulos Klaus Chilima, along with eight (8) others, casting a dark shadow over the nation. In the aftermath of this devastating event, a Commission of Inquiry was convened to investigate the causes of the crash, focusing on accountability and procedural failures. However, a closer examination of the report issued by the Commission raises significant questions about its objectivity, thoroughness, and potential bias.
The Commission’s findings appear to focus disproportionately on indirectly accusing the late Vice President, Saulos Chilima, and his team of not following the proper procedure to obtain the aircraft used for the ill-fated flight. It is concerning that the report lays blame on individuals who are no longer alive to defend themselves, while seemingly absolving key figures who may have been equally, if not more, responsible, including President Lazarus Chakwera. The manner in which the findings have been presented suggests that the Commission may have been more concerned with scoring points against specific individuals than with impartially investigating the causes of the tragedy.
One of the most glaring flaws in the report is its apparent reliance on the unchallenged testimonies of government officials, such as the President, the Inspector General of Police, the Minister of Justice, and civil servants from the Civil Aviation Authority. These responses were adopted wholesale by the Commission without any meaningful analysis or interpretation. Given the gravity of the situation, one would expect the Commission to critically examine these statements, contextualize them, and probe deeper into possible inconsistencies or gaps in their accounts. Instead, the Commission appears to have merely regurgitated the views of those in power, without offering a truly independent evaluation of the evidence.
What is equally troubling is the Commission’s selective presentation of evidence. The voices of ordinary respondents, those who were not directly tied to the government or involved in official procedures, have been conspicuously absent from the report. Were there no relevant allegations or testimonies from these individuals? If so, why not acknowledge this and clarify that the lack of sufficient evidence prevented their inclusion in the final findings? By failing to engage with the broader spectrum of testimony, the Commission gives the impression of a report that is more about absolving powerful figures than uncovering the truth.
Furthermore, the Commission’s repeated emphasis on actions taken by Chakwera, such as convening a Cabinet meeting, ordering a search, and making arrangements for a dignified funeral, raises concerns about potential bias. These actions, while undoubtedly important, were also duties that the President was obligated to perform, yet the Commission appears to present them as acts of goodwill or leadership, almost as if trying to exonerate him. It is worth asking: why did the Commission spend so much time dwelling on these procedural steps, and why was there no deeper inquiry into other critical aspects, such as the four (4) hours delayed search efforts or the conflicting statements provided by the President and the Army Commander?
The report is also notably silent on the failures of various government officials who may have played a part in the tragic incident. From the Civil Aviation Authority to the Office of the President and Cabinet, there are numerous individuals whose actions, or lack thereof, could have contributed to the disaster. Yet the Commission does not address these potential failures with the same rigor applied to others, such as the individuals who took photographs at the crash site. Why this discrepancy?
The over-reliance on testimonies from public officers, many of whom are constrained by policy and are unlikely to offer candid or critical information, further undermines the credibility of the Commission’s findings. For example, the report places considerable weight on the statements of Sikwese, a serving public officer, despite the clear limitations on his ability to provide independent or unfiltered accounts of such a sensitive matter. The Commission’s decision to use his testimony, and others like it, raises serious concerns about the reliability of the evidence it relied upon.
In conclusion, while the Commission’s report offers a narrative, it does so with a lack of depth, transparency, and a failure to hold the relevant authorities accountable. By focusing on the easy scapegoats and ignoring critical questions and inconsistencies, the report risks serving as a tool of political convenience rather than an impartial investigation into the tragedy.
The post A Critical Review of the Commission of Inquiry into the Plane Crash: Has Justice been Truly Served? appeared first on Malawi Voice.