Intimidation weakens truth

Malawians watching Parliament’s Ad-Hoc Committee’s inquiry into the plane crash that killed Vice-President Saulos Chilima and eight others on June 10 2024 are not looking for theatre.

We are looking for answers. Answers only come when witnesses feel safe to speak the truth as they know it, without fear of police threats or public shaming.

How the committee treated the late Chilima’s videographer Winnie Nyondo two weeks ago should worry every citizen who values a fair inquiry.

She testified that she received a WhatsApp message from one of the passenger of the ill-fated flight which read: “Too much turbulence”.

In her testimony, she says that posted it on her Facebook page on June 13 2024, three days after the plane crash, and has not deleted it. It remains on her phone to date.

When Nyondo restated this under oath, Ad-hoc committee chairperson Walter Nyamilandu-Manda did not behave honourably.

He insisted that the message had been deleted and warned that cyber police would investigate her if she did not “cooperate”.

The same evening, reports from within the police ranks had it that the Police headquarters at Area 30 in Lilongwe had summoned her for interrogation the next Monday, June 22 2026, in the morning.

This came true.

What Nyondo was subjected to is nothing but intimidation.

If the account is accurate, the problem is not the message itself. The problem is the signal being sent to every other potential witness: Speak, but only if your memory matches what the chair expects; otherwise, prepare for criminal investigation.

That is the opposite of what a State-sponsored inquiry is meant to do.

The committee was created to gather facts, test evidence and let contradictions be resolved through records, forensic analysis and cross-examination—not threats from the bench.

When a witness says “this is what I saw and what my phone shows”, the professional response is to request the phone, ask experts to examine it and put the output on record.

It is not to pivot from fact-finding to intimidation in open session.

Threatening police action in the middle of testimony does three things at once.

First, it chills other witnesses.

People who flew with Chilima, ground staff, meteorologists and technicians will now calculate risk before recall.

Second, it undermines public confidence. Citizens already suspect power protects itself. When a chair appears to police a witness’s memory rather than test it, the process looks less like truth-seeking and more like narrative control.

Third, it weakens the committee’s own work. If Nyondo’s phone holds data, that data is evidence. Intimidation does not make evidence appear or disappear. Proper digital forensics does.

No one is asking the committee to accept every claim at face value. Messages can be forged, phones can be wiped, memory can be mistaken.

That is exactly why we have procedures: chain of custody, expert examination and comparison with radar, air traffic control logs and cockpit recordings.

Let the phone speak through experts, not through threats from the chair.

Nyondo is not on trial. She is a witness. The law protects witnesses from harassment precisely because truth depends on their willingness to come forward.

If there is a case that she tampered with evidence, let it be built quietly, lawfully and after proper examination—not announced as a warning to silence her in the hearing room.

Malawi has buried a vice-president, eight other citizens and with them many questions.

Families, the nation and history deserve a record that can withstand scrutiny.

That record will not be built by threatening citizens who refuse to change what they believe is true, but by patiently following the evidence wherever it leads.

Nyamilandu and the committee still have time to reset the tone.

Withdraw the public threat, secure the device through lawful means and allow experts to report their findings. Summoning a witness for interrogation should be about recovering facts, not punishing memory [lapses].

If we cannot protect a woman who says “I did not delete this,” how will we protect the larger truth about why that plane went down?

The post Intimidation weakens truth appeared first on Nation Online.