In the wake of the Jabbar Alide Commission of Inquiry report revealed on December 14, 2024, the UTM has stepped into the arena with a public statement rife with misinterpretations and political opportunism. While the tragic circumstances surrounding the military plane crash that claimed the lives of Vice President Saulos Chilima and eight others warrant thorough scrutiny, UTM’s commentary shines a light on its ignorance of the facts and processes at hand.
At the heart of UTM’s criticism is the assertion regarding “pre-crash fatalities and injury mapping.” They imply that passenger fatalities prior to the crash remain unsubstantiated due to a lack of credible forensic explanation, further suggesting an absence of forensic investigation regarding injury patterns. However, this interpretation neglects vital elements presented in the Commission’s findings. The report does discuss autopsy results to substantiate its claims, and any discrepancies between the party’s commentary and the report can largely be seen as a desperate attempt to discredit the Commission without adequately engaging with the evidentiary basis that was laid out to the public.
The claim of missing toxicology tests adds another layer of disbelief to the UTM’s already tenuous arguments. The party’s outrage over the lack of these tests fails to recognize the complexity and sensitivity of such investigations. While tests for toxins are undoubtedly essential in certain scenarios, suggesting their absence is an outright failure without context is both misleading and strange. Importantly, the UTM has conveniently overlooked the fact that the Commission relied on autopsy reports that may very well provide significant information on toxicological factors.
What needs to be highlighted for UTM to understand is that the autopsy on the late Chilima was done by a private Pathologist, Dr. Steve Kamiza who submitted his autopsy report to the family in July 2024. When asked whether the family would share the contents of the report with the public, a family representative, Mr. Ben Chilima, answered that the family would need to review the contents of the report and make a decision thereafter. The family has remained silent since. Ever since, the family has not released or commented about the autopsy report 5 months down the line. Yet UTM, which is a political party that was not officially privileged with the report, purports to highlight knowledge of its contents by tacitly claiming that it did not have toxicology test.
Even in the event that the Secretary General of UTM who has released the public statement was somehow privileged with the report, any shortcomings in that report cannot be apportioned to the Commission or any third party who did not conduct or influence the conduct of the private autopsy. It is no doubt that the family knows this and appears more smart by not apportioning blame to a third party as the UTM has attempted to do.
One must also consider the implications of politicizing the tragedy. The UTM’s disregard for the facts in favor of a sensational narrative not only undermines the important work of the Commission but also risks deepening the wounds of loss for the family members still grappling with the aftermath of the crash. The sad reality is that such political maneuvers can shift focus away from what should be a unifying call for further justice where culpability emerges, transforming it into a desperate commentary on the current political environment.
Furthermore, it is disheartening to witness a political party that claims to champion transparency and justice resort to sensationalism and conjecture rather than engaging constructively with the findings of an inquiry that painstakingly sought to unravel the truth of a tragic event. If the UTM truly wishes to assert itself as a credible political force, then it must do so by promoting facts and measured discourse rather than exploiting tragedy for political gain.
