By Kenneth Bwanali
Captain Henry Nthani’s appearance before Parliament’s Ad Hoc Committee on the Chikangawa aircraft tragedy was highly anticipated.
As a senior military aviator and former Operations and Training Officer, many hoped he would clarify the decisions leading to the crash.
He delivered technical insight on aviation operations and the aircraft’s capabilities. But he also revealed major gaps.
Nthani stated he was not involved in planning or executing the mission because he was deployed in the DRC at the time.
That limited his direct knowledge. The Committee wanted answers on pre-flight decisions: who authorized the flight, what weather data existed, whether risks were assessed, and if transporting a senior official influenced the call. Nthani could not provide them.
He defended the aircraft as reliable and the crew as highly experienced. If both were true, the central question remains: what caused the crash? Nthani called it a “mystery,” yet offered theories about the pilots’ final actions to minimize post-impact fire risk.
That highlights the key issue: the line between evidence and interpretation. Without cockpit voice recorders or flight data recorders, investigators lack the tools that usually give definitive answers.
The most glaring omission was operational accountability.
Until the Committee probes the chain of decision-making and institutional processes behind the mission, the core mystery Nthani himself acknowledged will persist.
There are many questions like why the pilots flew so low diverting from their submitted flight plan
