By Rick Dzida
The decision by Malawi’s Parliamentary Ad Hoc Committee to hire renowned South African forensic pathologists, Dr Robert Gabriel Ngude and Dr Wilson Sibusiso Ntsele, is a massive victory for public transparency.
For too long, Malawians have been fed vague explanations regarding the tragic June 2024 military aircraft crash that killed Vice President Saulos Chilima and eight others.
By bringing in independent, external experts to review flawed medical records and potentially perform forensic exhumations, the committee is finally challenging the status quo and acknowledging that our national forensic infrastructure cannot handle this alone. This bold move sends a clear message: the truth cannot be buried forever!
In fact, engaging independent South African pathologists late in the investigation comes with clear trade-offs. Utilizing neutral, internationally respected experts counters suspicions of domestic political interference or cover-ups.
It is also envisaged that independent experts will bridge major local gaps in toxicology, DNA analysis, and specialized post-mortem reviews.
Obviously, external review will directly target systemic inconsistencies left behind by previous, inconclusive investigations.
However, because the crash happened in mid-2024, examining medical records or remains years later makes extracting clear pathological data much harder.
Furthermore, the prospect of exhumation deeply challenges cultural and religious traditions; and risks reopening painful wounds for the grieving families.
Unfortunately, bringing in foreign specialists significantly drives up the financial burden of an already expensive process.
Fortunately, the first phase of the public inquiry interviewed over 150 witnesses, exposing severe systemic failures.
It was discovered that the aircraft’s critical battery had expired in 2004, meaning it had been operating past its lifespan for two decades.
Furthermore, the military plane lacked both a Flight Data Recorder (FDR) and a Cockpit Voice Recorder (CVR), severely breaking standard safety oversight protocol.
Operational communication between the pilots and the ground team at Mzuzu Airport was completely unrecorded, combined with a delayed emergency response once the plane vanished from radar.
Former intelligence and security officials revealed that the military and police aggressively cordoned off the wreckage site, intentionally keeping National Intelligence Service (NIS) officers at a distance.
So far, has the committee unearthed the mysteries behind the plane crash? No, it has not fully solved the puzzle yet. While the testimonies vividly proved institutional negligence, they did not pinpoint a definitive cause or prove foul play. The findings confirmed how the plane was structurally unfit, but the underlying operational contradictions remain unresolved.
To ensure no vital information is missed, the committee must execute well calculated strategic steps.
First, it must systematically review original medical files to check the chain of custody and identify if critical toxicological metrics were intentionally omitted.
Second, it should concurrently subpoena air traffic controllers and high-ranking military commanders to reconcile conflicting accounts regarding the order to return to Lilongwe.
Third, it needs to secure formal legal clearance and clear, sensitive communication channels with the families to safely navigate the exhumation processes.
Regrettably, according to history, there is zero assurance that the findings of this inquiry will ever be implemented. Malawians have seen high-profile commissions of inquiry yield comprehensive reports that ultimately gathered dust on government shelves. Let us delve into examples.
The 2012 Commission of Inquiry into the death of President Bingu wa Mutharika and the subsequent constitutional transition resulted in explicit security recommendations that were largely ignored.
The initial 2024 technical assessments by German experts (BFU) and presidential commissions into this very crash were slammed by current officials as irregular, rushed, and severely lacking testimony from key figures.
The truth of the matter is that commissions of inquiry are inherently advisory rather than prosecutorial. Without strong, binding legal mechanisms, their final reports can be easily shelved by the executive branch whenever the truth becomes politically inconvenient.
It cannot be overemphasized that the committee lacks the judicial mandate to directly prosecute anyone. It cannot make arrests or issue criminal sentences. Its statutory power is limited to compiling facts and submitting an official report to Parliament.
However, it does hold the authority to formally recommend criminal prosecutions to the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) or the police, who must then act on the evidence.
Will This Inquiry Culminate into Another Public Purse Drainage?
There is a very high risk of this inquiry turning into an expensive exercise in futility. While the chairperson insists they are operating within existing parliamentary allocations, adding international forensic salaries, logistics, and legal fees will inevitably strain public resources. If the executive branch ultimately chooses to ignore the final report, this extensive 90-day investigation will become nothing more than a tragic, costly distraction funded entirely by Malawian taxpayers.
