The election of the African Chess Confederation leadership in Addis Ababa should have marked the beginning of a new chapter for African chess.
Instead, more than a month later, serious allegations surrounding the conduct of that election remain in the public domain. Those allegations deserve neither exaggeration nor dismissal.
They deserve answers. On 27 July 2026, Benard Wanjala of Kenya defeated incumbent ACC President Tshepiso Lopang of Botswana by 25 votes to 24. FIDE subsequently announced Wanjala as the new ACC President.
Andre Lewaks of South Africa was elected Vice President – Technical as part of the new leadership. A presidential election decided by a single vote will inevitably attract scrutiny. What makes Addis Ababa particularly significant, however, is what was alleged to have happened around the vote. The Allegations Following her defeat, Lopang challenged the election and accused Wanjala of vote-buying.
ChessBase reported the dispute and the challenge to the election. More detailed allegations were subsequently reported by Rook Review. According to that report, Nicolas Carbonela, a voting delegate, alleged in a written statement that at approximately 1 a.m. on the day of the election, Wanjala asked him to come to the lobby of the Skylight Hotel in Addis Ababa. Carbonela alleged that Wanjala then handed him an envelope containing US$1,500.
He stated that he understood the alleged payment as an attempt to influence his vote, refused the money and later provided evidence in support of the complaint. These are allegations.
They have not been established here as findings of fact, and Wanjala is entitled to reject them and to have the matter determined through the appropriate procedures. But the specificity of the allegation cannot reasonably be ignored: a named delegate, an alleged amount, an alleged location and an alleged time only hours before an election ultimately decided by one vote.
The Question of the Late-Night Envelopes The controversy has since widened. Public claims have circulated alleging that delegates were receiving envelopes containing what was described as “campaign material” during the early hours of election day. Again, the existence of such claims does not establish that money was inside those envelopes or that any electoral rule was violated.
But it creates a series of legitimate factual questions. Who distributed the envelopes? Which delegates received them? At what time? What did they contain? Who witnessed the deliveries? Were campaign representatives involved? And, if hotel CCTV exists, has it been preserved and examined by the competent authorities?
In an election decided 25–24, establishing these facts should be straightforwardly in the interests of both the winner and the loser. If nothing improper happened, a transparent investigation would protect Wanjala and the legitimacy of the new ACC leadership. If misconduct occurred, African federations have a right to know.
There is another reason why the Addis Ababa controversy now extends beyond African chess. After Wanjala’s election, Timur Turlov’s FIDE presidential campaign publicly embraced the new ACC President. In a campaign post accompanied by a photograph of Turlov shaking hands with Wanjala, Turlov congratulated him on becoming ACC President, explicitly referenced the 25–24 result, and stated: “I look forward to working closely together…”
That public statement is important. It does not prove that Wanjala formally belongs to Turlov’s presidential ticket. Nor does it demonstrate that Turlov had any involvement whatsoever in the disputed events in Addis Ababa. But it does demonstrate a public political relationship between Turlov and Wanjala at a moment when the circumstances surrounding Wanjala’s election remain contested. That relationship is therefore legitimately relevant to the wider FIDE election. Andre Lewaks and the New ACC Leadership
The second important figure is Andre Lewaks. Lewaks was not an independent observer of the ACC presidential contest. He appeared on Wanjala’s ACC electoral slate as its candidate for Vice President – Technical and subsequently took that position following the election. He is therefore part of the leadership that emerged from the disputed 25–24 vote.
That fact must be distinguished carefully from any allegation of wrongdoing. Being Wanjala’s political ally does not establish that Lewaks participated in, knew about or approved any alleged attempt to influence delegates. Any such accusation would require independent evidence.
The relevant point is narrower but important: when examining the political structure that emerged from Addis Ababa, Lewaks is a senior member of Wanjala’s team, not an unrelated figure. Dennis Wandina and the Need to Establish Roles The third name requiring clarification is Dennis Wandina, who has worked alongside Wanjala within Kenyan chess activities. Here too, precision matters. Political proximity is not evidence of misconduct.
If Wandina played a role in Wanjala’s ACC campaign, the appropriate question is therefore not whether he should be condemned by association, but what exactly his role was during the election period. Was he part of the campaign operation in Addis Ababa? Did he communicate with delegates? Was he involved in distributing campaign materials?
Was he present during any of the late-night activity now being discussed? Those questions should be answered through evidence — witness statements, communications, photographs, hotel records or CCTV — rather than political speculation. Three Relationships, One Larger Political Picture The emerging picture therefore needs to be described accurately.
Wanjala won the ACC presidency by one vote and is personally the subject of publicly reported vote-buying allegations. Lewaks was part of Wanjala’s electoral slate and became a senior official in the leadership elected alongside him.
Wandina has an established working association with Wanjala, while his precise role in the disputed ACC campaign requires clarification before stronger conclusions can responsibly be drawn. And Turlov has publicly associated his FIDE presidential campaign with Wanjala, congratulating him and announcing his intention to work closely with him.
These relationships do not establish collective wrongdoing. They do, however, make the unresolved questions surrounding Addis Ababa politically relevant to the FIDE presidential election. Transparency Cannot Be Selective FIDE is approaching an election that will determine the leadership of world chess. Every presidential candidate is entitled to scrutinise his opponents.
Complaints should be filed when there is a legitimate basis for them. Electoral rules should be enforced. But the same standard must apply in every direction. If a candidate demands transparency concerning another campaign, that principle cannot suddenly become inconvenient when serious allegations concern political allies of his own. This is not about declaring anyone guilty.
It is about establishing facts. The questions arising from Addis Ababa are capable of being investigated objectively: obtain the relevant complaints and witness statements; establish who approached delegates and when; identify what was distributed; examine available CCTV and hotel records; and give every person accused an opportunity to respond. Then publish the findings.
African Chess Deserves an Answer There is a danger in reducing this controversy to another confrontation between rival chess camps. It is more important than that. The legitimacy of a continental federation depends upon its members believing that elections are free, fair and protected from improper influence.
The difference in Addis Ababa was one vote. Against that background, a publicly reported allegation that a voting delegate was offered $1,500 only hours before the election is not something the chess community should simply forget because the ballots have already been counted. Nor should anybody be convicted in the court of public opinion merely because an accusation has been made. There is a much simpler solution: Investigate.
Establish the facts. Publish the conclusions. If the allegations are false, Wanjala and the ACC leadership deserve to have their names cleared. If they are substantiated, African chess deserves appropriate action.
And as figures emerging from the Addis Ababa election become increasingly relevant to the battle for the leadership of FIDE, the need for clarity becomes greater, not smaller.
The result was 25–24. One vote determined who would lead African chess. The chess world therefore has every right to ask what happened in the hours before that vote and to expect a serious answer.
