Just two days after accepting to sworn in, activist Sylvester Namiwa has, shockingly, resigned from the Commission of Inquiry, raising eyebrows and igniting debate over his motives and the implications of his actions.
While he claims to advocate for justice and transparency, his resignation appears to reveal a troubling hypocrisy that undermines the very principles he purports to support.
For the starters, the Commission of Inquiry was instituted by President Lazarus Chakwera under a clear mandate from Parliament, designed to uphold the rule of law and ensure thorough investigations into pressing issues surrounding the death of Vice president Saulos Chilima and 8 others in a plane crash on 10th June.
Chaired by respected judges, a Commission of Inquiry is built on a framework that prioritizes legal integrity.
Yet, Namiwa has openly criticized the Commission, demanding that it operate according to his personal dictates rather than the established legal guidelines. This stance raises serious questions about his commitment to lawful processes. By favoring populist sentiments over legal protocols, Namiwa appears more interested in fostering mob justice than in adhering to the rule of law.
One alarming aspect of Namiwa's conduct is his insistence on publicly parading witnesses. Commissions of Inquiry are designed to protect witnesses from potential threats, intimidation, and bribery, ensuring they can provide their testimonies without fear.
Namiwa's push for public exposure of these individuals starkly contradicts this protective ethos, endangering the very witnesses he claims to support. Such demands suggest a willingness to compromise witness safety for personal or political gain, further calling into question whose interests he genuinely represents.
The integrity of any Commission of Inquiry hinges on the trustworthiness and balance of its members. Namiwa's initial acceptance to serve on the Commission was seen as a means to provide checks and balances, lending credibility to the inquiry.
However, his abrupt resignation undermines this trust. By accusing the Commission of a lack of transparency before any testimonies have been heard, he not only preemptively disparages the process but also deflects scrutiny from his own actions.
In his resignation letter, Namiwa fails to provide clarity on the overwhelming opposition he faced from fellow Commissioners regarding his proposals.
Sign up for free AllAfrica Newsletters
Get the latest in African news delivered straight to your inbox
Instead of fostering an open dialogue about differing perspectives, he opts for a self-serving narrative, dismissing the views of those who have dedicated themselves to impartiality and the public good.
This lack of transparency in his reasoning paints him as a figure who is not only untrustworthy but also unwilling to engage in the civic responsibilities he demands of others.
Of course, public reactions to Namiwa's resignation have been mixed, with many citizens expressing disappointment.
Many view his actions as emblematic of a broader trend where individuals in positions of influence prioritize personal agendas over collective accountability and transparency.
As citizens demand integrity from their leaders, Namiwa's actions serve as a stark reminder of the importance of consistency between one's words and deeds.
In resigning from the Commission of Inquiry, Namiwa has exposed a profound hypocrisy that raises critical questions about his motives and commitment to justice.
While he positions himself as a champion of transparency and integrity, his actions suggest otherwise--favoring populism over principle, and self-interest over civic duty.
As the Commission moves forward, the question remains: can true justice prevail in an environment where some voices seek to undermine it from within? The unfolding narrative will be closely watched by all who care about the integrity of democratic processes and the rule of law.
