The trouble at BWB

There is a danger that Malawi will look at the latest development at Blantyre Water Board (BWB) and conclude that the Yeremia Chihana problem has finally been solved.

It has not.

Chihana has been fired and the board has moved with remarkable speed to install Henri Bakuwa as his replacement. The courts have also made it clear that Chihana’s dispute is essentially an employment matter.

But it is precisely at this point that we should resist the temptation to close the book.

The bigger question is not whether Chihana should have been fired. It is whether the events at BWB reveal a much deeper governance problem that will remain long after Chihana has left.

He took office in April and within months found himself suspended, fighting the board in court and ultimately dismissed.

The board says he committed serious misconduct and that a disciplinary committee found against him after he failed to attend its proceedings. Those are serious allegations and they must not be trivialised.

But legitimate questions remain.

If Chihana was fundamentally unsuitable for the position, was that not known when he was appointed?

If the allegations against him were so serious, why did the institution repeatedly end up in court instead of resolving the matter through a clean, transparent and professionally managed disciplinary process?

And if this was simply an employment dispute, why has the entire affair generated such extraordinary political and institutional heat?

These questions matter because BWB is not an ordinary private company. It is a public utility. It belongs, ultimately, to Malawians.

The public is therefore entitled to ask whether decisions at the institution are being driven by professional considerations or by political and personal interests.

There have been persistent reports that powerful individuals have been pulling strings behind the scenes. There have also been claims that the conflict was connected to battles over contracts and procurement.

More importantly, BWB has recently attracted questions over procurement. In July, bidders threatened legal action after the board halted a tender-opening process involving various goods, services and works.

That is why the Chihana saga should not be viewed solely through the prism of one man’s alleged misconduct.

If there has been wrongdoing, investigate it. If there has been corruption, prosecute it. If politicians have interfered in the affairs of the utility, expose that interference.

And if Chihana himself abused his office, let the evidence establish it and let the appropriate institutions deal with him.

Accountability cannot be selective.

We cannot demand that a CEO account for every decision while those who appoint, supervise and remove CEOs operate behind a veil of institutional secrecy.

Which brings me to perhaps the strangest part of this latest episode: the speed with which BWB found a replacement.

Chihana was dismissed on October 5. By the following day, BWB had a new CEO.

The speed of the appointment has inevitably raised questions about whether a proper recruitment process could realistically have been completed in such a short period.

The public deserves to know how the process was conducted.

Was the appointment made before Chihana’s dismissal was announced? Who was involved in the selection? What criteria were used?

That concern is even greater because public institutions do not operate in a vacuum. Decisions made in a boardroom can affect water supply, public finances and confidence in government.

When questions arise about procurement, appointments and disciplinary action, silence only deepens suspicion.

The best way to restore confidence is not through statements and counter-statements but through documents, evidence and independent scrutiny.

What if Chihana was indeed guilty of some or all of the offences alleged against him, but the campaign to remove him was nevertheless driven by motives that had little to do with professionalism?

The two things are not mutually exclusive. A person can be guilty of misconduct and still be the victim of a politically motivated campaign.

The public should not be asked to choose between believing Chihana and believing the board. We should demand evidence from both sides.

If Chihana successfully challenges his dismissal before the appropriate labour forum, taxpayers, rather than the individuals who fought the battle, could ultimately foot the bill.

If compensation runs into millions of kwacha, one question must be asked: who pays for institutional mistakes?

This is why the Chihana saga should become the beginning of a serious governance audit at BWB, not the end of the story.

BWB needs a board whose decisions can withstand public scrutiny, management that respects its mandate, transparent procurement, professional appointments and an accountability system that applies equally to everyone.

Most importantly, it needs leadership that understands that BWB exists not to serve politicians, directors or executives but the people of Blantyre.