Blantyre Water Board (BWB) is a public institution, not a battlefield for personal rivalries.
Yet the continuing confrontation between its board and Chief Executive Officer Yeremia Chihana increasingly gives the impression that individual differences have taken precedence over the interests of the organisation.
A professional relationship between a board and its chief executive has descended into a deeply troubling dispute.
At this point, it is difficult to see how such a relationship can be described as healthy or productive.
- Advertisement -
Chihana should not be exonerated from responsibility simply because he is the chief executive.
- Advertisement -
If there are legitimate concerns about his conduct, performance or compliance with board decisions, these must be addressed through established procedures.
A chief executive is accountable and must operate within the authority and policies of the organisation.
But accountability cannot be one-sided.
The board must also be prepared to examine its own conduct and ask whether the continuing confrontation is genuinely about professional and administrative matters or whether personal differences have taken over.
- Advertisement -
That is the bigger concern.
The dispute increasingly appears to have moved beyond legitimate differences over how BWB should be managed.
The repeated confrontations suggest that the relationship between the two sides has become deeply personal.
When that happens, even ordinary disagreements can become battles for control, authority and pride.
And when personal battles enter a public institution, the public inevitably pays the price.
BWB cannot afford to have its senior leadership distracted by an endless cycle of confrontation.
Its management needs to focus on water production, distribution, infrastructure, financial management and the many challenges facing the utility.
Instead, attention continues to be drawn to the dispute at the top.
That is unacceptable.
There is also the uncomfortable question of politics.
Politics appears to be hovering around the dispute, raising legitimate questions about whether interests outside the professional management of BWB are influencing what is happening inside the institution.
We should be careful not to present allegations as established facts. But neither should we be naïve about the political environment in which public institutions operate.
Malawi has a long history of political interests finding their way into public institutions.
Boards and senior appointments can become entangled in competing interests, loyalties and influence. When that happens, institutions lose their independence and professionalism.
BWB must not become another casualty.
If powerful individuals are pulling strings behind the scenes, that would be deeply troubling.
Public institutions should not be controlled by people who are not responsible for running them.
A public institution cannot function properly when its leaders are locked in a prolonged power struggle.
Staff cannot be expected to remain confident and focused when senior leadership is constantly at odds.
Decisions can be delayed, authority can become blurred and employees can find themselves caught between competing camps.
BWB belongs to the people. It is funded and sustained for the purpose of providing an essential public service. Its leadership cannot treat the organisation as an arena for settling personal scores.
There will always be differences of opinion in an organisation. A strong board should be able to challenge management without turning disagreement into hostility.
Equally, a chief executive should be able to defend his position without treating legitimate oversight as a personal attack.
That is what professionalism looks like.
What is happening at BWB risks creating the opposite culture.
The government must therefore stop treating this as simply an internal dispute and take a serious interest in the institutional damage being caused.
Its responsibility is not to take sides with the board or the chief executive. Its responsibility is to protect the integrity and effectiveness of a public utility.
The institution must come first.
BWB needs stability, professional leadership and a clear focus on its mandate. Its board and management should spend their energy improving the utility rather than fighting each other.
There is simply too much at stake.
Malawians do not care who wins a personal battle at BWB. They care about whether the taps have water.
They care about reliable services, functioning infrastructure and an institution that uses public resources responsibly.
That is the standard by which the board and management should be judged.
They must therefore put their egos aside, resolve their differences and restore confidence in BWB.
If they cannot work together, then the relevant authorities must find a way of restoring an effective leadership structure.
What cannot continue is the current situation where a public water utility appears increasingly consumed by the battles of the people entrusted to run it.
