By Burnett Munthali
The ongoing Commission of Inquiry investigating the tragic plane crash involving the Vice President seems to be deflecting responsibility onto the public. The Commission has expressed frustration that citizens are not coming forward with evidence. However, this raises a critical question: what exactly is the Commission seeking? Given that some vital details surrounding the crash are already held by the government, this should not be an issue of public testimony alone. Instead, the Commission should focus on simple yet important questions that could potentially unravel the truth and establish the facts surrounding the incident.
Here are several questions that could guide the investigation:
1) Who informed President Chakwera that the plane had been sent back to Lilongwe when it crashed, just five minutes after being cleared to land?
2) Why was the radio communication between the aircraft crew and the airport flight attendant not recorded?
3) Who authorized the aircraft crew to land at Mzuzu airport?
4) Is radio communication between the aircraft crew and the airport flight officer always recorded? If so, why was the Vice President’s plane not recorded?
5) The plane had fuel sufficient for only 2 hours of flight. Why did Valentino Phiri state that the plane had enough fuel for 4 hours?
6) Why not organize a focus group with the villagers who witnessed the crash to help explain what happened on that day?
7) Who advised Valentino Phiri that the plane had crashed in a thick forest?
8) Why did Colleen Zamba withdraw the press release she had drafted, informing the nation of the Vice President’s passing, when the wreckage had not yet been officially found? I presume the release was authentic, as she never discredited it.
Rather than placing blame on the public for voicing their opinions, the Commission should concentrate on these straightforward inquiries that could shed light on the incident. The BFU report has already highlighted discrepancies in the government’s official statements. The records are there, yet it is baffling that no one has been held accountable for the apparent failures in their duties. This raises a troubling possibility: could the return of incompetent staff be seen as compensation for a job “well done”? Some may view this as evidence of a larger plot at play.
At this juncture, it is vital for the Commission to focus on these pressing questions and establish the truth. The public should not be expected to bear the burden of providing answers that the government should already possess. The failure to resolve such issues only deepens the suspicions surrounding the crash and fuels ongoing doubts about the integrity of the investigation.
