Full text of Ziyambi’s response to Chiwenga corruption dossier given to Mnangagwa
President Emmerson Mnangagwa finally responded to an explosive corruption dossier submitted by his deputy, Vice President Constantino Chiwenga during a Zanu PF meeting.
The 25-page rebuttal was issued by the Zanu PF Secretary for Legal Affairs, Ziyambi Ziyambi and the hostility was there for all to see with phrases like “ignorant”, “emotional outburst”, “in denial”, “immature”, and “not a good follower” used to describe Chiwenga.
The rebuttal from Mnangagwa via Ziyambi ended with an apparent insult to Chiwenga:
“The author (Chiwenga) of the document does not understand the tenets of democracy and the difference between civilian and military conduct, which prompts a reorientation course at the Chitepo School of Ideology for the whole Politburo and Central Committee, on the Supremacy of the Party and basic tenets of democracy.”
We publish below the full response below the details of what Chiwenga accused, followed by Mnangagwa’s rebuttal addressed point by point.
PAGE 1
RESPONSE TO AN UNTITLED DOCUMENT PRESENTED TO HIS EXCELLENCY THE PRESIDENT ON 17 SEPTEMBER 2025
FROM: THE SECRETARY FOR LEGAL AFFAIRS, CDE ZIYAMBI ZIYAMBI
- Introduction
The document under discussion was presented to His Excellency, the President, by Vice President Comrade Dr C.D.G.N Chiwenga, who personally took authorship of the same.
Consequently, I was mandated to look into the document and come up with a summarised response, as I hereby do. In preparing my response, the following legal instruments were examined:
i. Constitution of Zimbabwe
ii. Constitution of the Zimbabwe African National Union – Patriotic Front (ZANU PF)
iii. Criminal Law (Codification and Reform) Act [Chapter 9:23]
iv. Interpretation Act [Chapter 1:01]
v. Public Entities Corporate Governance Act [Chapter 22:23]
viii. Any other texts deemed necessary
Your Excellency, members of the Presidium and the Politburo, allow me now, therefore, to present my response in the chronological order in which the allegations were presented in the document. In my presentation, I will first go through the issue highlighted and then respond accordingly.
⸻
PAGE 2
PARAGRAPH 1
ISSUE
Comrade President, we undertook Operation Restore Legacy with a sacred mandate: to reclaim our nation from the jaws of corruption and to restore the dignity, prosperity, and sovereignty of Zimbabwe for its people.
Response
This paragraph seems to be the preamble to the document presented to His Excellency the President. It summarises the events of November 2017 in a manner that, however, evokes emotions. In the absence of any contextual background, this is therefore mere political rhetoric and of no consequence.
PARAGRAPH 2
ISSUE
Comrade President, in November 2017, we took a bold and necessary step to remove former President Robert Mugabe from power because:
• he sought to manipulate our Constitution for personal gain
• he allowed certain individuals and family members to seize his executive authority and abuse it
• he ignored the suffering of the people while a corrupt elite looted with impunity
• he turned ZANUPF into a personal fiefdom, disregarding its founding values
Response
There is no evidence to substantiate the claim of constitutional manipulation by the former President. In fact, there is nothing to indicate that Operation Restore Legacy was done because the former President was manipulating the Constitution for personal gain.
May I take the opportunity to simplify the concept of constitutional manipulation. Constitutional manipulation entails amending, altering, or repealing the Constitution in a way that benefits the individual or his or her allies.
The only amendment effected to the current Constitution during the tenure of the former President was the amendment of section 180, a provision which deals with the appointment of judges.
This whole paragraph regrettably portrays the late former President (may his soul continue to rest in peace) as the manipulator and chief perpetrator, yet he was a victim of manipulation by certain named individuals who, following due process, were later charged for their alleged criminal activities.
To sum up this paragraph, I submit that Operation Restore Legacy was about removing alleged criminals around the former President. The latter consequently resigned, having taken into consideration the circumstances of the moment and the will of the people.
Denigration of our founding fathers or those who came before us is not only disrespectful but also reprehensible.
⸻
PAGE 3
PARAGRAPH 3
ISSUE
During November 2017, we risked everything — our lives, our freedom, our futures — to restore and defend our legacy, the Party and the Constitution.
Response
It is denied that only a few individuals, particularly the writers of this document, sacrificed their lives for the attainment of Operation Restore Legacy. Zimbabweans from all walks of life rose and participated in and supported Operation Restore Legacy. Let us acknowledge the collective effort that made Operation Restore Legacy possible and desist from claiming heroism for work done by many.
There is no denying that Operation Restore Legacy had significant backing. A considerable amount of resources was invested to guarantee its success. It is unlikely that an operation of this scale could have achieved its goals without substantial financial support.
For the record, Mr Kudakwashe Tagwirei put in a total of 5 million litres of fuel, food and other provisions for soldiers as requested by the then CDF, General Chiwenga. Furthermore, he put in one million litres of fuel and 1.6 million USD to the Party.
Therefore, the success of Operation Restore Legacy cannot be attributed to a few individuals. Any such assertions are aimed at distorting the historical narrative for personal and political gain.
PAGE 4
PARAGRAPH 4
ISSUE
Today, history is repeating itself in the most shameful way, Comrade President. Why we find ourselves in this situation is both shocking and shameful.
Response
In order to arrive at an appropriate comparison of the two scenarios of 2017 and today, it is important to profile the state of the economy as of November 2017 and to date.
In 2017, our economy was characterised by the following:
a) Political instability
b) Ninety-eight percent of government revenues were being used for salaries. There were always delays in paying salaries. There were no exact days salaries or bonuses were paid. Embassies were owed in excess of USD 27 million, and some would go for over 11 months without being paid.
c) GDP was USD 17 billion and per capita income was around USD 1,000. Public debt to GDP was 70%.
d) Foreign currency shortages — although not as prominent in November 2017, foreign currency shortages were a recurring issue in Zimbabwe’s economy, contributing to company closures and economic challenges. Fuel shortages were the order of the day.
e) Severe droughts in 2015 and 2016 resulted in communities depending on wild fruits and native edible foods as Government struggled to manage the crisis.
f) Eighty percent of all goods in the shops were imported.
g) GDP growth in 2017 was 5.2% compared to the previous year, driven by various economic factors, but this growth did not necessarily translate to immediate stability or relief for the general population.
To compare the Zimbabwean economy in 2017 and now is disingenuous, absurd and preposterous, as Zimbabwe under the leadership of President E.D. Mnangagwa has been the fastest-growing economy in the SADC region.
No leadership in the world has grown an economy over a 5–6 year period at a comparable rate to this President.
Annexe 1 details a few of his achievements over the past six years.
⸻
PAGE 5
PARAGRAPH 5
ISSUE
Comrade President, on several occasions and even abroad, you have informed the nation that you are a Constitutionalist, and yet it is now clear for anyone to see that the so-called 2030 Agenda to extend your term of office is real and alive, and this has now taken us back to the ills that led us to November 2017.
Response
Indeed, the President is a constitutionalist who has not deviated from the Constitution at any time. However, if the people have spoken, should the President disregard the will of the people?
The author is patently disregarding the resolutions and seems unaware of the provisions of Article 6, Section 34, subsections (2) to (5) of the Party Constitution, which outline the powers and functions of the National People’s Conference.
The Conference is mandated to:
(2) Review, evaluate and supervise the implementation of resolutions and programmes of the Central Committee, National People’s Conference and Congress.
(3) Make resolutions for implementation by the Central Committee.
(4) Declare the President of the Party elected at Congress as the State Presidential Candidate of the Party.
(5) Exercise any such powers and authority as may be incidental thereto.
It is therefore clear that resolutions made at the Conference must be implemented as per the provisions quoted above.
There were thirty-one (31) resolutions emanating from the last Conference, and Agenda 2030 was resolution number one (1). The people, through the Conference, came up with these resolutions as per their mandate in terms of the Constitution. There is therefore nothing unconstitutional about it.
Furthermore, section 328 of the national Constitution allows for the amendment of the Constitution, and there is nothing illegal about amending or seeking to amend the Constitution.
The above assertion could be a result of the author’s ignorance of the quoted legal provisions. However, such ignorance may be excusable for non-legal persons. What is being referred to as the 2030 Agenda derives from the 2024 resolutions of the Conference.
Given the underlying circumstances, any attempt to destabilise the Government on the basis of such falsehoods is tantamount to treason.
⸻
PAGE 6
The author is patently disregarding the resolutions and seems unaware of the provisions of Article 6, Section 34, subsections (2) to (5) of the Party Constitution, which outline the powers and functions of the National People’s Conference.
The Conference is mandated to review, evaluate and supervise the implementation of resolutions and programmes of the Central Committee, National People’s Conference and Congress; make resolutions for implementation by the Central Committee; declare the President of the Party elected at Congress as the State Presidential Candidate of the Party; and exercise any such powers and authority as may be incidental thereto.
It is therefore clear that resolutions made at the Conference must be implemented as per the provisions quoted above. There were thirty-one (31) resolutions emanating from the last Conference, and Agenda 2030 was resolution number one (1).
The people, through the Conference, came up with these resolutions as per their mandate in terms of the Constitution. There is, therefore, nothing unconstitutional about it.
Furthermore, section 328 of the national Constitution allows for the amendment of the Constitution, and there is nothing illegal about amending or seeking to amend it.
The above assertion could be a result of the author’s ignorance of the quoted legal provisions. However, such ignorance may be excusable for non-legal persons.
What is being referred to as the 2030 Agenda derives from the 2024 resolutions of the Conference. Given the underlying circumstances, any attempt to destabilise the Government on the basis of such falsehoods is tantamount to treason.
⸻
PAGE 7
PARAGRAPH 6
ISSUE
Moreover, the drivers of this so-called 2030 Agenda have now made corruption, looting of our state coffers and bribery of our structures the cornerstone of their contribution to this campaign, and this is now destroying our Party and violating our Constitution.
Response
This is false and malicious. Resolution number one (1) was passed in the presence of the author. It is therefore shocking and of concern that he is agonisingly trying to distance himself from a Party resolution to which he was a part (by calling it the so-called 2030 Agenda).
One would wonder whether there is an ulterior motive behind all this. It is also not clear which Constitution is being violated, as I have already addressed the issue of compliance with the law.
PARAGRAPH 7
ISSUE
We are witnessing in shock as some of our officials in the Party and Government have now become a law unto themselves and are even announcing to our people at gatherings that we are no longer holding elections in 2028.
These are critical announcements on matters that we, as a Presidium and the Central Committee, have never discussed, nor did we pass a resolution at the last 2022 Congress.
Response
The author is clearly ignorant of Party processes. Every year after a Conference, the Party mandates its officials to report back to the people on Conference resolutions per the Party’s Constitution.
There is nothing amiss about these announcements, as the message is consistent and resonates with the Conference resolution number one (1).
In fact, what is shocking is that the author of this document is in denial and is not moving with the Party.
On the contrary, the 2022 Congress declared Comrade Dr E.D. Mnangagwa as the Party’s Presidential candidate for the 2023 harmonised election, and the resolution still stands.
Any contrary personal views or beliefs do not hold, and neither are they superior to the Party Constitution.
PAGE 8
PARAGRAPH 8
ISSUE
The reality which is clearly emerging is that this 2030 Agenda is being funded and driven by known criminals who have brazenly looted our state coffers with impunity and are now using these resources whose capture and control of our Party is unprecedented and deeply worrying.
Response
Again, the denial narrative of the Conference resolution and the lack of appreciation of the ZANU-PF Constitutional procedure is apparent in this paragraph. The author is haunted by any thought of the implementation of this critical Party resolution.
Whoever is running with the 2030 Agenda resolution is doing so in compliance with Resolution number one (1) of the 2024 Conference. This is an emotional statement precipitated by denial and is contemptuous of individuals who have never been tried in a court of law.
To label anyone a criminal before they are tried and convicted is defamatory. There is nothing criminal about receiving funding for our revolutionary Party from the business community and well-wishers, a practice which the Party has been associated with since time immemorial.
These reckless utterances can lead to our business people refraining from supporting the Party.
⸻
PAGE 9
PARAGRAPH 9
ISSUE
We surely cannot fold our hands and watch these criminals like Kudakwashe Tagwirei, Wicknell Chivayo, Scott Sakupwanya, and Delish Nguwaya, amongst others, corrupt and bribe our structures and in the process destroy our Party.
Response
This is a reckless statement coming from the author who is expected to appreciate the due process that ought to be followed before one is labelled a criminal. What is emerging from this narrative is a trend of attacking the President through certain individuals.
One would assume that due process is a given at the author’s level. What is interesting is that the targeting deliberately omits some notorious alleged smugglers such as Simon Rudland and Zunaid Moti, among others, who are alleged to be associates of some members of the Presidium.
⸻
PAGE 10
PARAGRAPH 10
ISSUE
Comrade President, these criminals and their associates have been engaged in a brazen and systematic campaign and stealing from our Government, and to date, they have stolen more than US$3.2 billion of Government funds through:
10.1. The stealing of our US$1.9 billion from the Ministry of Finance to Kudakwashe Tagwirei for selling a 35% stake in Kuvimba Mining House.
10.2. The stealing of state assets like Sandawana Mines and the Zimbabwe Defence Forces’ Great Dyke Investments by Kudakwashe Tagwirei, and inclusion of these assets in his fraudulent stealing of our US$1.9 billion.
10.3. The stealing and concealment by Kudakwashe Tagwirei of the Party’s 45% shareholding in Sakunda Holdings held by Mvuto Investments (Private) Limited, an investment vehicle of the Party held through our National Reconstruction Group, which was purchased in November 2013.
10.4. The stealing by Wicknell Chivayo of US$45 million of our money from the Zimbabwe Election Commission.
10.5. The stealing by Wicknell Chivayo of state funds, more than US$193 million, from our government coffers through one bank in our country, and we know that he has stolen some horrific amounts from our Government coffers through other banks in our country.
10.6. The stealing of more than US$800 million from Government coffers by Scott Sakupwanya through the so-called gold incentive scheme, which has now been made into a tollgate fraud.
10.7. The stealing of US$162 million of public funds by Delish Nguwaya through his irregular and inflated Geo Pomona contract with the City of Harare.
10.8. The stealing of more than US$60 million of Government funds by Delish Nguwaya through his irregular and inflated Clean Planet Resources contract with the Ministry of Health/NatPharm.
Response
This clearly is a narrative to discredit individuals who have been supporting the Party for a long time and are still doing the same. Zimbabwe is a constitutional democracy with well-established institutions to deal with such matters.
Individuals have no legal mandate to go behind their perceived competitors, investigating their day-to-day activities with a view to satisfying their own personal ego.
Whilst I do not have the mandate to investigate these allegations, I have nevertheless taken it upon myself to establish the basis upon which they were made.
It is important to note that I have several documents that disprove these allegations, and these were duly shared with the responsible institutions mandated to deal with such matters. I shall therefore respond as follows.
⸻
PAGE 11
Paragraph 10.1
The allegation that US$1.9 billion was stolen from the Ministry of Finance through the sale of a 35% stake in Kuvimba Mining House is wholly misleading. It is surprising how a legitimate sale is now being distorted into an act of theft.
What is required here is credible evidence, not conjecture or speculation. Without proof, such claims amount to nothing more than malicious fabrications intended to discredit loyal cadres.
Paragraphs 10.2 and 10.3
The allegations relating to Sandawana Mines, the Zimbabwe Defence Forces’ Great Dyke Investments and Mvuto Investments are entirely unfounded. These transactions were executed with full Cabinet approval, and they adhered to all legal and procedural requirements.
According to all documents that I have gone through, ZANU(PF) does not own any shares in Sakunda Holdings (Pvt) Ltd. There is also no resolution within ZANU(PF) that has been approved to acquire shares in Sakunda Holdings.
To label these transactions as theft is a gross distortion of the facts. I am in possession of the Cabinet Authority which authorises these sales, marked Annexure II and III.
Allegations pertaining to the theft of US$193 million from Government through a bank are absurd.
It is difficult to imagine how an individual would steal such a large amount of funds from a bank unaided, unless the writer is alleging there was a break-in, robbery or fraud, in which case the bank ought to have made a report to the police.
⸻
PAGE 12
Paragraph 10.6
Government approved the payment of gold incentives to all those with gold-buying licences in order to increase delivery of gold to Fidelity. There are over 13 gold buyers who receive such incentives.
For completeness, the incentive scheme for gold is primarily regulated by the Gold Trade Act (Chapter 21:03), which stipulates the day-to-day implementation of gold trading and incentives by Fidelity Gold Refineries, a subsidiary of the Reserve Bank of Zimbabwe.
Incentive schemes are introduced and modified through various instruments which include, among others, RBZ Circulars and Statutory Instruments.
The scheme in question was introduced by Government to curb gold smuggling and to encourage formal deliveries of gold to FGR. How then is such a programme a “toll gate” when in actual fact it is curbing the illicit movement of gold from the country?
The only people stealing are those who were benefiting from the porous systems before the incentive scheme. It is therefore not correct to say anyone is stealing when it is actually a Government programme.
PAGE 13
Paragraph 10.7
With reference to paragraph 10.7, it is important to note that there are several Cabinet authorities authorising this contract. Why then is the author now disowning Cabinet decisions?
Members of Cabinet are accountable, both individually and collectively, for the decisions and actions taken in Cabinet.
It is therefore both surprising and unacceptable that the writer seeks to distance himself from decisions of Cabinet, when in fact those very decisions were duly made and authorised within its established structures.
Paragraph 10.8
With regard to paragraph 10.8, due process was followed, and the individual in question was acquitted. It is therefore surprising that this matter is now being improperly resurrected before the Politburo, despite having been conclusively addressed through the judicial process.
This whole paragraph, with unfounded allegations of theft, depicts a lack of appreciation of the concept of sale. All the contracts concluded were strictly in compliance with the Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets Act (Chapter 22:23).
At no time did ZEC enter into a contract with Chivhayo or any company associated with him. It is thus grossly misleading to allege any stealing of ZEC funds by the said individuals.
Comrades, as a Party, we must not be self-destructive. What motive could there be for us, ZANU-PF, to discredit our own electoral victory? What rationale exists for challenging the very process that placed us in power?
Any attempt to do so undermines not only our Party but also the will of the people we serve.
⸻
PAGE 14
PARAGRAPH 11
ISSUE
The actions of these criminals, which also include turning your Private Office, Comrade President, into a place where key Government decisions are made, demand that strong action be taken immediately to preserve our Party and stability in our Country.
Response
Regrettably, this is a direct and personal attack on the person of the President. The Office of the President is protected in terms of our Constitution.
There are provisions to protect the President whilst in office. This is done to ensure the maintenance of peace and stability in the country.
Section 10 of our Constitution mandates every person or Government entity to promote peace, stability and national unity.
Undermining the Office and authority of the President is a criminal offence in terms of our law and has the effect of eroding the credibility of the President, thereby destabilising our peace, unity and even national security.
The President’s personal residence and private matters are off limits and should not be subject to speculation.
The author has clearly demonstrated his bitterness. To question what happens to the President in his private space is not only immature but also meddling and intrusive. This is a clear demonstration of serious disrespect for the President.
A good leader is a good follower. The author has shown that he is not a good follower and therefore cannot be a leader.
Information has been brought from reliable sources that members of the Presidium equally host multitudes at their private places in and around Harare. (I shall not bother to comment whether that is competition with the Principal, as this is not part of my mandate today.)
No one has ever questioned these gatherings nor eavesdropped on what takes place at these private places. By the same token, can we therefore draw an adverse inference that this document was authored at someone’s private farm?
⸻
PAGE 15
PARAGRAPH 12
ISSUE
Comrade President, we discussed issues around the Land Tenure Implementation Committee and we, as a Presidium and Cabinet, appointed the Party Chairman, Comrade Muchinguri, to lead this process and report back on how best we can approach this.
But to our shock and disbelief, Kudakwashe Tagwirei is now running with this and reversing the Land Reform Programme, completely going against the resolutions we made at the 2022 Congress.
Response
This is not a reversal of the Land Reform Programme. This is actually provided for in the country’s Constitution. Previous Party Conference resolutions spoke about security of tenure but perhaps because the author was not a member, he is not aware.
Cabinet decisions, including the Land Tenure Programme, are collective decisions. The Executive authority vests in the President and Vice Presidents assist the President.
It is interesting to note how these issues are being raised a year later and well after the members of the Presidium have commenced the personal title deed registration process in compliance with the policy.
The fact that this programme has reached the implementation stage demonstrates that the programme was accepted and adopted. The author seems to lack clarity on the implementation Committees and leadership thereof.
The implementation process of the Land Tenure System should not be construed as a reversal of the Land Reform Programme on the basis of the author’s intolerance of an individual who is chairing one of the implementation Committees.
For the record, may I state that a previous request to have the Committee present to the Politburo was not heeded.
⸻
PAGE 16
PARAGRAPH 13
ISSUE
Furthermore, Comrade President, these criminals have polluted the concept of Affiliates that we set up to support the Party.
The clear intentions that we had of how these Affiliates should complement the Party have now been completely hijacked by these criminals, and we are now seeing Affiliates being more resourced and becoming more powerful and influential than our Organs of the Party.
Response
This is further evidence of the denial syndrome I have been referring to throughout the document. The issue of affiliates is under the purview of the Commissariat.
The matter was comprehensively presented by the National Commissar, and no one challenged it, resulting in it being adopted by the Politburo.
So how can the so-called criminals hijack a process that has been endorsed by the Politburo and is reported in the reports of the National Commissar?
The issue of affiliates is not a new invention of the Second Republic. I have it on record that, as far back as 2008, the army created Party affiliates.
The author of the document should desist from discouraging the programme on the basis that it perpetuates a process which he does not subscribe to.
The truth of the matter is that there is disdain and anger toward resolution number one (1) by the author, which is apparent throughout the document.
⸻
PAGE 17
PARAGRAPH 14
ISSUE
Comrade President, you recall I brought to your attention the treasonous project which has been penned by Jonathan Moyo for our Parliament to implement — the so-called Breaking Barriers Initiative — which is seeking to change our political system and suspend elections to 2035.
Not only is this Project treasonous and a huge scandal, and it is being done and championed by people like Jonathan Moyo, who we fired from the Party, but this Breaking Barriers Initiative has also never been discussed and approved at the Party’s last Congress, nor has it ever been discussed and approved by the Central Committee.
We are now watching in shock and disbelief as this project is being covertly implemented and funded by these criminals — Kudakwashe Tagwirei, Wicknell Chivhayo, Scott Sakupwanya, and Delish Nguwaya — and their associates.
PAGE 18
Response
This is very strange and exposes a lot of covert shenanigans. It is surprising how the writer got hold of the Building Bridges Initiative (BBI) document if it was meant for Parliament. This tendency of stalking officials who are carrying out their duties is regrettable.
There is nothing treasonous about improving a political system. This BBI, which is being referred to, is not strange to us, and it is actually promoting nation building and cohesion as compared to the author’s divisive and inciteful document.
The BBI is an opposition document which was initially brought to my attention by the leader of the opposition in Parliament, Sengezo Tshabangu, in the company of a General Khumalo from the Vice President’s Office.
As a Party, we should appreciate the relationship with the opposition, which has been beneficial to us. There is no proof whatsoever that the BBI Project is being funded by the named individuals.
It appears the author is more seized with it and would have assisted us by unpacking it further.
⸻
PAGE 19
PARAGRAPH 15
ISSUE
Comrade President, tirikuti vanhu ava — Kudakwashe Tagwirei, Wicknell Chivhayo, Scott Sakupwanya, and Delish Nguwaya, and their associates — ngavasungwe immediately for these unprecedented crimes they have committed.
Response
Again, this is another emotional outburst from someone who is in denial of the 2030 resolution. As I alluded to earlier, there are constitutionally established institutions in terms of our Constitution that are mandated to deal with such issues.
The doctrine of separation of powers, the principle of segregation of duties, and the imperative to prevent abuse of power and authority are fundamental safeguards designed to protect citizens from the overreach of those in positions of leadership.
PARAGRAPH 16
ISSUE
Tingarambe takatarisa vanhu vachiba more than US$3.2 billion in cash from our state coffers while our people are suffering out there?
Even mealie meal is now running out because of maize shortages while we are prioritising paying these criminals.
Hospitals are running out of critical medicines and now the same people who are stealing our assets and resources are using these resources to hijack power, corrupt our structures, and destroy our Party?
⸻
PAGE 20
Response
I have already stated that one would assume that due process is a given for the author’s level. On what basis would the President order the arrest of citizens without following due process?
This is a manifestation of the denial I have already alluded to. It is not denied that the individuals now referred to as criminals have been funding the Party for the past 20 years. Surprisingly, they have become criminals all of a sudden.
It should be noted that whenever the Party receives funding from donors, the donors do not dictate how the funds are to be utilised. The allocation of these resources remains the sole prerogative of the Party, guided by its priorities and areas of need.
Contrary to this assertion, currently there are no mealie meal shortages, and the Government is addressing the hospital issue. However, the former Minister of Health and Child Care must clarify the deterioration in the health sector rather than deflecting blame.
The assertion that these resources are being used to hijack power, corrupt our structures, and destroy our Party is unfounded and must be rejected with the contempt it deserves.
⸻
PAGE 21
PARAGRAPH 17
ISSUE
Comrade President, the time for silence and inaction is over, and we cannot allow these criminals who have stolen from our Government coffers and our Party to start using the same resources to bribe fellow comrades and our structures to get their support, defend and protect them.
PARAGRAPH 18
ISSUE
These criminals are not just enriching themselves; they are using their stolen wealth to capture our Party, manipulate state institutions, and compromise key officials. They are creating a parallel power structure funded by the very state they are destroying.
This cannot be tolerated for a single day longer.
PARAGRAPH 19
ISSUE
The time for silence and inaction is over, Comrade President. We, as the Party’s Presidium, have serious issues to immediately deal with that will define our future, and we must immediately prioritise cleaning our house, reclaim our State and our Party from the capture by Kudakwashe Tagwirei, Wicknell Chivayo, Scott Sakupwanya, and Delish Nguwaya and their associates.
We need to reaffirm the sacred principles of the revolution and our legacy. The future of our nation and the faith of our people depend on the decisive actions we take now.
⸻
PAGE 22
Response
The contents of paragraphs 17, 18, and 19 are a regurgitation of the information consistently presented throughout the document.
These utterances are inciteful, and this strong appetite to bring us back to November 2017 should be nipped in the bud, and any such ambitions should be crushed.
Any attempt to destabilise or subvert a constitutionally elected Government is treasonous.
⸻
PAGE 23
- Conclusion
In light of the foregoing, the document is fundamentally flawed, and its averments lack merit. It is my considered opinion that the document should be disregarded due to its material shortcomings and lack of appreciation of Party procedures and the national Constitution.
At its core, the document advocates for the unlawful removal of a constitutionally elected President, which is palpably treasonous.
The document not only undermines the President but also the economy and individuals who work hard to support the Party.
One wonders whether the placement under sanctions of some of these individuals was not a result of such reckless utterances.
Such reckless utterances have cost our economy, His Excellency’s goodwill in the international fora, and individuals who have been unduly placed under sanctions.
In the end, no investor would want to invest in our country.
What is equally troubling is how such a document found its way into the hands of hostile media houses across the country.
The circumstances under which the author obtained access to the documents, now in the public domain, remain highly questionable and amount to a violation of the Official Secrets Act.
The presentation bears a striking resemblance to the narratives perpetuated by Geza, Western media, and all our detractors bent on undermining our sovereignty and constitutional order.
⸻
PAGE 24
Whilst the author castigates certain individuals, he has never castigated Geza — a rebel who was expelled from the Party and is bent on inciting chaos in the country.
The Party remains committed to fostering an environment where constructive criticism and dissenting views are valued, but such views must be presented in a manner that is respectful, factually accurate, and in good faith.
The author of the document does not understand the tenets of democracy and the difference between civilian and military conduct, which prompts a reorientation course at the Chitepo School of Ideology for the whole Politburo and Central Committee, on the Supremacy of the Party and basic tenets of democracy.
The document’s intention is suspect, and its allegations are baseless and devoid of evidence.
We are compelled to re-emphasise that any attempt to stage a coup, whether through treacherous acts, misrepresentation of facts, violation of others’ privacy, incitement of violence and despondency, or wilful blindness to positive development, is a grave offence that undermines the stability and unity of our nation and should be liable to immediate censure.
⸻
PAGE 25
(End of document)
