When Yeremia Chihana walked into the Blantyre Water Board (BWB) as Chief Executive Officer just three weeks ago, he was expected to steady a critical public institution. Instead, he now finds himself at the centre of a fast-unfolding controversy that is raising more questions than answers--and exposing what analysts describe as a troubling fog around decision-making at the utility.
The official story is straightforward: Chihana was suspended following a board resolution accusing him of overstepping his authority. Among the charges are his public announcement of free water provision in cholera-affected areas, distribution of granular chlorine, and a decision to write off arrears owed by kiosk operators--all allegedly done without board approval. Additional claims include procedural breaches, such as granting unauthorized access to BWB facilities and acting without informing the board on sensitive matters.
But scratch beneath the surface, and the narrative begins to fray.
Why would a board move so swiftly--and so harshly--against a CEO barely weeks into his tenure? Was there truly enough time to establish a pattern of misconduct serious enough to warrant suspension, or does the speed of the decision point to deeper internal fractures?
Follow us on WhatsApp | LinkedIn for the latest headlines
Governance experts are not convinced by the explanation on record. National Advocacy Platform chairperson Benedicto Kondowe says the timeline alone raises red flags about the integrity of the process.
"A suspension within three weeks is not normal in any well-functioning institution," he said. "It suggests either that due diligence was not properly done at the point of appointment, or that there are internal dynamics we are not being told about."
At the heart of the dispute is a fundamental question about power: where does the authority of a board end, and where does the mandate of a CEO begin?
Chihana's contested decisions were tied to a cholera response--an emergency that arguably demands swift executive action. Yet the board's reaction suggests those actions were viewed not as leadership, but as insubordination. That tension is now fuelling a broader debate about whether the board is enforcing governance or overreaching into management territory.
Governance commentator Chimwemwe Tsitsi believes the official reasons do not fully account for the severity of the action taken.
"When the punishment appears disproportionate to the reasons given, it naturally leads to suspicion," Tsitsi said. "People begin to ask whether what is on paper is the real story."
Indeed, speculation has been building that the fallout may be linked to interests beyond what has been disclosed publicly, including claims that Chihana may have resisted certain procurement decisions. While unconfirmed, such allegations have added to the perception that the suspension could be about more than just procedure.
Equally puzzling is the board's apparent discomfort with interventions aimed at easing a public health crisis. Chihana had announced a three-month plan to provide free water in cholera-affected areas, reportedly backed by K100 million in World Bank funding--a move that, in many eyes, aligned with the social responsibility of a public utility.
So why did that become a flashpoint?
Is this a case of a CEO moving too fast for a cautious board, or a board unwilling to cede operational space in a moment that demanded urgency? And if management cannot act decisively in a crisis without triggering disciplinary action, what does that say about the institution's ability to respond to national emergencies?
These are the questions that refuse to go away.
Then came a dramatic twist that has only deepened the intrigue. The High Court has since overturned Chihana's suspension, ordering his immediate reinstatement and granting him the right to challenge the board's decision through judicial review. In its ruling, the court pointed to a lack of transparency and ordered the release of key documents, including internal reports, meeting minutes, and evidence underpinning the allegations.
For critics, that intervention does not just reverse a decision--it validates concerns that due process may have been compromised.
The court has also barred the board from taking further disciplinary steps without first giving Chihana full access to the case against him, effectively putting the board's actions under legal scrutiny.
Sign up for free AllAfrica Newsletters
Get the latest in African news delivered straight to your inbox
But even with that ruling, the central questions remain unresolved.
What exactly happened inside BWB in those three weeks? Were the charges against Chihana a genuine response to misconduct, or a symptom of deeper institutional conflict? And why does the official account leave so many gaps?
Chihana himself has remained cautious, saying he needed time to reflect before commenting publicly. His silence, for now, only adds to the sense that this is a story still unfolding beneath the surface.
What is clear is that this is no longer just about one man's suspension. It is about how power is exercised, how decisions are made, and how transparent public institutions are willing to be when their actions come under scrutiny.
Until those questions are answered, the Chihana saga will remain less a closed case--and more a mirror reflecting the unresolved tensions at the heart of public sector governance.
