Mnangagwa vs Chiwenga: A battle of power, loyalty and survival in ZANU PF

The internal power struggle between Zimbabwe’s President Emmerson Mnangagwa and his deputy, Vice President Constantino Chiwenga, has exploded into public view, revealing deep cracks at the top of ZANU–PF.

A 25-page rebuttal by Mnangagwa to Chiwenga’s corruption dossier has laid bare a hostile exchange laced with political insults, institutional warnings, and accusations of treason.

Chiwenga’s Allegations: Corruption and State Capture

In his now-leaked dossier submitted to the ZANU–PF Politburo on 17 September 2025, Chiwenga accused Mnangagwa’s allies — including Kudakwashe Tagwirei, Scott Sakupwanya, Wicknell Chivayo, and Delish Nguwaya — of siphoning over US$3.2 billion through state contracts and financial manipulations.

He claimed that the President’s “private office” had become a parallel centre of power, undermining state institutions and capturing both the party and government.

Among the most striking claims was the allegation of a “2030 Agenda” — widely interpreted as a plot by Mnangagwa to extend his rule beyond the constitutional term limit ending in 2028. Chiwenga demanded accountability, arrests, and the restoration of the party’s constitutional authority.

Mnangagwa’s Response: Scorn, Denial, and Ideological Reprimand

Mnangagwa’s reply — delivered by ZANU–PF’s Secretary for Legal Affairs Ziyambi Ziyambi — dismissed Chiwenga’s document as “ignorant, emotional, and reckless,” and even labeled it treasonous.

The President’s response defends all the contested deals (including the controversial Pomona waste deal and Kuvimba share sales) as legal, approved by Cabinet, and compliant with national law.

The rebuttal attacks Chiwenga’s character and judgment, calling him “immature,” “not a good follower,” and accused him of being “in denial” about the realities of governance. The language, while framed in bureaucratic terms, reveals deep personal animosity and a clear intent to discredit Chiwenga’s authority.

In a sharp parting shot, Mnangagwa’s document concludes: 

“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.”

What the Rebuttal Reveals

Beyond the surface-level rebuttal, this confrontation is not simply about corruption — it’s a succession battle wrapped in accusations of disloyalty. Several key dynamics emerge:

Loyalty as Leadership Test: Mnangagwa emphasizes that “a good leader is a good follower,” suggesting that challenging authority equals betrayal.

Framing Dissent as Treason: By casting Chiwenga’s claims as unconstitutional and destabilizing, the President’s camp positions internal criticism as a national security threat.

Control through Ideology: The call for an “ideological reorientation” signals an attempt to reassert party discipline — and possibly to purge dissenters.

Succession Struggle in Motion: With 2028 approaching, Chiwenga’s challenge may be as much about halting Mnangagwa’s possible third-term ambitions as it is about accountability.

What Comes Next?

This exchange marks a turning point in Zimbabwean politics. Potential outcomes include:

Chiwenga’s Marginalization: If labeled as disloyal or treasonous, he could be removed or pushed aside, with charges or formal expulsion from ZANU–PF not off the table.

Factional Realignment: The rift may deepen internal divisions within the ruling party, with other elites forced to take sides.

Security Risk: With both men rooted in military power, the stakes are high. Any escalation could destabilize the state’s security architecture.

Public and International Scrutiny: As the succession debate intensifies, the political fallout may attract global attention and further pressure from civil society.

Final Word

This is more than a political quarrel. It is a confrontation between Zimbabwe’s two most powerful men, each claiming to defend the party’s legacy, while preparing to shape — or seize — its future. In the process, the rules of engagement within ZANU–PF, and possibly the country, are being rewritten.