By Durell Namasani
There is a fine line between steering a parliamentary inquiry with firmness and using the chair’s podium to bully, intimidate, and pre-judge. Walter Nyamilandu, chairperson of the Adhoc Parliamentary Committee investigating the Chikangawa plane crash, appears to have crossed that line—and in doing so, he is undermining the very purpose of the inquiry he was appointed to lead.
Nyamilandu’s recent warning that anyone giving false testimony will face legal consequences is, on its face, a standard procedural reminder. But context matters. When a chairperson issues such threats prematurely—before hearings have even reached their full stride—it sends a chilling message to witnesses: we already suspect you are lying. That is not how sober, impartial inquiry works.
The whole point of an inquiry is to hear people out
An investigation into a tragedy that claimed nine lives, including former Vice President Dr. Saulos Chilima, demands patience, open-mindedness, and procedural fairness. The committee has summoned more than 150 witnesses and is still in its first phase, focusing on pre-flight planning and authorisation. Yet Nyamilandu has already signalled that he is prepared to brandish the law against those whose testimony might not fit a certain narrative.
This is not leadership—it is intimidation dressed in a suit.
Witnesses have already endured emotional exchanges before the committee. During testimony from Dr. Lucky Sikwese, Principal Secretary in the Office of the Vice President, Nyamilandu pressed him on whether security personnel had failed in their ground duties and whether Sikwese himself had regrets. While tough questioning is legitimate, the tone matters. When a chairperson leans into a witness with the weight of legal consequences hanging in the air, the line between scrutiny and bullying blurs dangerously.
Do not make conclusions before hearing from people
Nyamilandu’s approach betrays a fundamental misunderstanding of his role. A chairperson is not a prosecutor. He is not a judge. He is a facilitator—one who ensures that all evidence is heard, all voices are respected, and conclusions emerge after the facts have been examined, not before.
Yet his warning about false testimony suggests he has already formed a view that witnesses cannot be trusted. That is a dangerous prejudice for any investigator, let alone the leader of a parliamentary committee tasked with producing a credible report.
Consider the irony: Nyamilandu referred to reports that former Special Assistant on Media Winnie Nyondo had deleted a Facebook post about severe turbulence before the crash. But when Nyondo appeared before the committee, she told them the post is still available. This incident is revealing—not because of the post itself, but because it shows a chairperson who appears ready to believe rumours and social media chatter over the testimony of witnesses in the room.
Sober leadership, not strong-arm tactics
Nyamilandu promised Malawians that the inquiry would be “just, fair and transparent”. Those are noble words. But fairness cannot coexist with threats issued before the evidence is fully heard. Justice cannot flourish when witnesses fear that answering honestly—even if their answers are inconvenient—might invite legal action.
The Chikangawa crash has already been investigated twice. The public is desperate for answers, not for a spectacle of intimidation. If Nyamilandu truly wants to produce a credible report that addresses gaps in previous inquiries, he must first address the gap between his rhetoric of fairness and his actions of coercion.
A chairperson should be sober
Nyamilandu’s background in football administration—where he served as FAM president for a record 17 years—may have accustomed him to commanding rooms and issuing edicts. But a parliamentary inquiry is not a football association. Witnesses are not players to be benched or fined. They are citizens, many of whom are already grieving or fearful, appearing before a committee that holds immense power over their reputations and futures.
The gavel is not a weapon. It is a tool for listening. Nyamilandu would do well to remember that before he threatens another witness. The truth does not emerge from fear—it emerges from trust, patience, and the sober conviction that every voice deserves to be heard before any conclusion is drawn.
That is the whole point of an inquiry. That is what Malawians deserve.
