By Rick Dzida
The establishment of the 2026 parliamentary inquiry into the military aircraft crash that claimed the lives of Malawi’s former Vice President, Saulos Klaus Chilima, and eight others represents a significant opportunity to deepen public understanding of one of the country’s most tragic aviation disasters.
Since the accident, Malawians have continued to seek answers regarding the circumstances surrounding the crash.
Previous investigations provided valuable technical information but also left many citizens with lingering questions, resulting in continued public debate and speculation.
Therefore, this parliamentary inquiry has the potential to complement—not necessarily replace—the previous investigations by examining broader institutional, administrative and policy issues.
It is soothing to learn that the ad hoc parliamentary committee has started conducting the investigations professionally, independently and transparently thereby providing hope that their findings will enjoy substantial public confidence.
Several features of the parliamentary inquiry provide reasons why its eventual findings can be trusted.
One of the greatest strengths of this parliamentary inquiry is the diversity of its membership drawing individuals from different educational, professional and political backgrounds.
Obviously, rather than relying on one discipline alone, the current inquiry therefore benefits from multidisciplinary perspectives.
The committee includes politicians who understand public administration and government accountability. Lawyers contribute expertise in constitutional law, statutory interpretation, procedural fairness and the assessment of evidence. Economists can analyse resource allocation, procurement systems and institutional efficiency. Members with military knowledge understand command structures, aviation operations and defence procedures. Other members bring experience in governance, public finance and oversight.
The diversity of membership with various backgrounds including law, military, economics, politics governance, public finance, management and many other disciplines reduce the likelihood that findings will be shaped by a single professional viewpoint.
It is therefore envisaged that different members will be able to challenge each other’s assumptions, ask different questions and test competing explanations before arriving at conclusions.
Usually, such multidisciplinary scrutiny often produces more balanced findings than investigations conducted from only one technical perspective.
Another notable strength of the parliamentary inquiry is the decision to conduct many witness interviews publicly through live broadcasts.
Open hearings allow citizens to observe the inquiry process directly instead of relying solely on summaries released after proceedings have concluded.
Obviously, members of the public are able to evaluate the consistency of witness testimony, observe the questions posed by committee members and understand how evidence is developed.
Of course, transparency strengthens accountability. Besides taking oath, witnesses who testify publicly are generally aware that their statements are subject to public scrutiny and therefore exercise greater care in ensuring accuracy.
Public hearings also reduce opportunities for misinformation because citizens can independently observe what witnesses actually said rather than relying on rumours or selective reporting.
It is therefore consensually agreed that the openness of the proceedings will likely increase public confidence in the final report as any discrepancy in the report will be easily discovered by the general public.
Furthermore, unlike investigations that follow rigid interview protocols, this parliamentary committee possesses considerable flexibility during witness examinations.
It has been observed that committee members are free to ask follow-up questions whenever new issues emerge.
For instance, if a witness introduces previously unknown information or appears to contradict earlier evidence, members are flexible to seek clarification.
This flexibility obviously enables investigators to explore unexpected developments instead of limiting themselves to predetermined questionnaires.
It has also been observed that as new facts emerge during testimony, additional questions are being developed in real time.
Obviously, this investigative approach often uncovers information that structured interviews might overlook.
Therefore, the ability to probe deeply allows the committee to develop a fuller understanding of events before, during and after the aircraft accident.
Moving forward, another important strength is the committee’s ability to invite additional witnesses whenever necessary.
As hearings progress, new names, institutions or experts emerge from previous testimony. Rather than ignoring these leads, the committee has proposed to expand its witness list in order to obtain further evidence.
This flexible approach will ensure that investigations remain evidence-driven instead of being restricted by an initial witness schedule.
If contradictions arise between witnesses, the committee has the mandate to recall previous witnesses or invite entirely new individuals capable of clarifying disputed facts.
Such adaptability therefore increases the completeness and reliability of the inquiry.
Furthermore, the decision to hear from spouses and immediate family members of those who lost their lives has provided valuable contextual information at the meantime.
Family members, particularly spouses, potentially are among the last people to communicate with the deceased before the flight.
Therefore, they most likely possess information relating to travel arrangements, telephone conversations, messages or other interactions that can assist investigators in reconstructing timelines.
However, their testimony should not be viewed as technical evidence regarding aircraft operations. Rather, it can provide useful contextual information that complements technical investigations.
It is also culturally believed that including families demonstrates respect for those directly affected by the tragedy while ensuring that potentially relevant information is not overlooked.
As parliamentary committees derive authority from Parliament’s constitutional oversight role, this ad-hoc inquiry has the mandate to enforce the attendance of witnesses and request relevant documents, including through subpoena or similar compulsory processes where necessary.
This legal authority distinguishes this parliamentary inquiry from informal investigations that depend entirely upon voluntary cooperation.
The ability to compel testimony reduces the likelihood that important witnesses simply decline to participate.
Similarly, access to official documents enables investigators to compare oral testimony with documentary evidence.
Where inconsistencies arise, committee members can seek clarification before drawing conclusions.
These legal powers enhance the credibility and completeness of the inquiry.
Furthermore, this parliamentary inquiry has not begun its investigation in isolation.
It is on record that previous investigations into the crash—including technical aviation investigations and other official reports—provide an existing body of evidence.
Rather than duplicating previous work, the committee will most likely review those reports, identify areas requiring further clarification and evaluate whether additional evidence has emerged since their publication.
Therefore, this cumulative approach means the parliamentary inquiry benefits from lessons already learned.
Despite some reservations, it is objectively agreed that earlier investigations established important technical findings concerning the aircraft, weather conditions and operational circumstances.
Consequently, the parliamentary committee will assess those findings alongside fresh witness testimony and institutional evidence.
Therefore, where previous reports answered technical questions, the parliamentary inquiry will most likely focus on broader issues of governance, decision-making, communication and accountability.
As a matter of consequence, its findings will become a more comprehensive account by integrating information from multiple sources while identifying any unresolved issues that merit further explanation.
Furthermore, as complex aviation accidents require specialised expertise, the parliamentary inquiry will endeavour to seek input from professionals with relevant technical knowledge including meteorologists, aircraft engineers, qualified pilots, forensic experts, military aviation specialists, legal and medical experts among many others.
In fact, expert evidence and analysis enable parliamentarians without specialist aviation backgrounds to better understand complex scientific and engineering issues before reaching conclusions.
In conclusion, the credibility of the inquiry will depend not merely on who participates, but on whether its conclusions remain firmly grounded in verifiable evidence, careful analysis and transparent reasoning.
If these principles are consistently followed, the parliamentary committee’s report is well positioned to become an important contribution to public accountability, institutional learning and the continued pursuit of truth regarding one of Malawi’s most significant national tragedies.
