The election of the African Chess Confederation (ACC) leadership in Addis Ababa was expected to open a new chapter for African chess. More than a month later, however, allegations concerning the conduct of the vote remain unresolved, raising questions ahead of the forthcoming International Chess Federation (FIDE) presidential election, scheduled for September.
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. International Chess Federation (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, voting delegate Nicolas Carbonela alleged in a written statement that at approximately 1 a.m. on election day, 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, which he understood to be an attempt to influence his vote. He said he refused the money and later provided evidence in support of the complaint.
Those claims remain allegations and should not be presented as established findings of fact. Wanjala is entitled to reject them and to have any complaint determined through the appropriate procedures.
Many observers say the allegation is difficult to dismiss as routine post-election politics because of its specificity. It involves a named delegate, a stated amount, an identified location and an approximate time, only hours before an election ultimately decided by a single vote.
The dispute has since widened beyond the specific allegation involving Carbonela.
Public claims have circulated that delegates received envelopes described as containing “campaign material” during the early hours of election day. Those claims do not establish that the envelopes contained money, nor do they prove that any electoral rule was breached.
They do, however, raise factual questions that should be possible to answer, according to a person familiar with the dispute.
“Who distributed the envelopes? Which delegates received them? At what time were they delivered? What exactly did they contain? Who witnessed the deliveries? Were campaign representatives involved? And if hotel CCTV exists, has it been preserved and examined?” he asked.
“A transparent examination of the allegations should be in the interests of everyone involved. If no improper conduct occurred, a credible investigation could help protect Wanjala’s reputation and reinforce the legitimacy of the new ACC leadership. If misconduct did occur, African chess federations would be entitled to know what happened and what action followed,” he added.
Wanjala and the Turlov campaign
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…”
The statement does not establish that Wanjala is formally part of Turlov’s presidential ticket, nor is there evidence presented in the complaints that Turlov was involved in the disputed events in Addis Ababa.
A person involved in African chess politics said the significance was political rather than evidentiary.
“The question is not whether Turlov was involved in what happened in Addis. There is no evidence of that. The issue is that the ACC president is now publicly associated with a FIDE presidential campaign while questions about his own election remain unresolved,” she said.
That connection has increased scrutiny of others associated with Wanjala’s ACC campaign.
Andre Lewaks stood on Wanjala’s slate and became Vice President – Technical after the election. His alliance with Wanjala does not establish that he knew of or participated in any alleged effort to influence delegates.
Dennis Wandina, who has worked alongside Wanjala in Kenyan chess, has also been mentioned in discussions about the campaign.
A person close to the ACC election said the relevant question was whether Wandina had a role in the Addis Ababa operation and, if so, what he did.
“Was he working with delegates? Was he involved in distributing campaign materials? Was he present during the late-night activity being discussed?” the person said, adding that such questions should be settled through records, communications, witness accounts or CCTV rather than speculation.
Russian chess official Mark Glukhovsky was also involved in Wanjala’s campaign, according to the insiders.
A person familiar with the campaign said investigators should establish what responsibilities he held and which delegates he communicated with in the final hours before the vote.
“With a 25-24 result, understanding who was running the campaign and what happened immediately before voting is part of establishing the full picture,” the person said.
Wider implications
The relationships do not establish collective wrongdoing.
Wanjala is personally the subject of the reported vote-buying allegation. Lewaks was part of his electoral slate. Wandina has a working association with him, although the precise campaign roles of both Wandina and Glukhovsky remain unclear. Turlov has publicly said he looks forward to working with Wanjala.
A senior figure in African chess said those links made the unresolved ACC dispute relevant to the FIDE presidential contest.
“If candidates want transparency from their opponents, the same standard has to apply when questions involve people politically close to them,” the person said.
A person close to the ACC said the matter could be investigated through existing evidence, including complaints, witness statements, hotel records, communications and any available CCTV.
The findings can then be published.
African chess deserves an answer
There is a risk that the controversy will be reduced to another dispute between rival chess camps.
It is more important than that.
The legitimacy of a continental federation depends on its members having confidence 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 can simply forget because the ballots have already been counted.
At the same time, nobody should be convicted in the court of public opinion merely because an accusation has been made.
The answer is straightforward.
Investigate the allegations. Establish the facts. Publish the conclusions.
If the allegations are false, Wanjala and the ACC leadership deserve to have that made clear.
If they are substantiated, African chess deserves an appropriate response.
As figures emerging from the Addis Ababa election become increasingly relevant to the contest for the leadership of FIDE, the need for clarity only grows.
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.
