The Witness Who Asked the Nation to Believe Too Much: When Testimony Collapses Under Its Own Timeline

Let this be heard clearly and without loss of frequency: Public inquiries are not theatres. They are institutions established to discover facts. Their currency is evidence not emotion, not speculation, and certainly not untested testimony.

Philosopher C.A.J. Coady, in his landmark work “Testimony: A Philosophical Study (1992)”, reminds us that testimony can generate knowledge only when it is subjected to critical scrutiny. In other words, testimony must be triangulated. It must be tested against chronology, independent evidence, internal consistency, and objective facts. That standard appears especially relevant to the testimony recently given by Moses Mnthakomwa.

Mthakomwa’s central claim was that at 20:19 hours on 10 June 2024, he received a telephone call from Major General Msonthi informing him that the missing aircraft had already been found. Yet, according to Mnthakomwa, he avoided sharing this information because he trusted what the then President had announced, that the aircraft was still missing. Meanwhile, the President’s address occurred around 23:00 hours. Surely, the witness could not have relied on a statement that had not yet been delivered to reject information allegedly received almost three hours earlier. What stopped him from sharing such information to his friends within those three hours? He didn’t come clear on this very important question.

Chronology is often the first test of truthful testimony. Events either fit together or they do not. Where the sequence of events becomes impossible, confidence in the account naturally diminishes. That’s what appears to be the logical fate with his testimony. The danger in allowing an internally inconsistent narrative to acquire the status of established fact before it has survived careful examination is huge. The purpose of an inquiry is not to reward imaginative storytelling. Its duty is to distinguish memory from fact, hearsay from evidence, and possibility from proof. And the truth deserves nothing less.

Ironically, the Chairperson of the Ad Hoc Committee of Inquiry has reportedly declared that the Committee has “now started receiving tangible evidence” following Mnthakomwa’s questionable testimony. The remark may have been spontaneous. It may have been innocent. But public inquiries are judged by whether or not they appear fair. A chairperson of a public inquiry task occupies a position unlike any other participant in the hearing. Witnesses may speculate. Lawyers may advocate. Observers may form opinions. A chairperson, however, must project disciplined neutrality until every relevant fact has been tested.

Declaring satisfaction with testimony before it has been independently verified risks sending an unfortunate signal that the Committee may already be gravitating toward a preferred narrative. This concern is heightened by the nature of the evidence itself. The testimony praised as “tangible” reportedly contained an apparent chronological inconsistency and depended largely upon an alleged conversation that has not, on the available record, been publicly confirmed by its alleged source.

If such evidence is celebrated before corroboration, what message does that send to future witnesses? More importantly, what message does it send to the public? An inquiry must never appear eager to confirm a theory rather than investigate one. Evidence must lead the inquiry not the inquiry leading the evidence. History teaches us that investigative bodies lose credibility the moment they appear emotionally invested in a particular outcome. The public begins to wonder whether contradictory evidence will receive the same attention as evidence supporting the emerging narrative.

The Chairperson carries an immense responsibility. Every word spoken from that position influences public confidence. The nation does not need an inquiry that appears to be searching for confirmation. It needs one that is searching for truth, even if that truth ultimately contradicts the expectations of everyone involved.