Fellow Zimbabweans, we must ask ourselves when a public figure raises allegations of graft, are they acting out of genuine principle or are they jockeying for advantage in the corridors of power?
Take the case of Themba Mliswa.
On the one hand, he has long argued that corruption (“zvigananda”) is Zimbabwe’s greatest threat, not sanctions.He publicly accused Minister Marian Chombo and senior security officials of illegal land deals and protected mining syndicates.
On the other hand his recent focus on Vice President Chiwenga and related controversies raises questions:
• He claims that Chiwenga’s anti-corruption crusade is not about national reform but personal vendetta. For example: “From day one I argued that the VP’s move was steeped in politics and a revenge move rather than actually fighting corruption.”
• He accused Chiwenga of being influenced by his wife, and of overestimating his influence in the military.
• He publicly declared that businessman Kudakwashe Tagwirei is President Emmerson Mnangagwa’s natural successor thereby implicitly dismissing Chiwenga’s chances.
If we map the action:
1. Chiwenga positions himself publicly as a “clean-up” figure, targeting cartels and contracting scandals (which is admirable in principle).
2. Mliswa attacks Chiwenga’s moral authority, questions the motives behind specific actions, and emphasises that no one in the political elite is untainted. (True, but the selective focus is telling.)
3. Meanwhile, the succession struggle inside the ruling party (ZANU-PF) looms large as the public ask themselves "who will be next?" "Whose faction will prevail?"
This raises a critical question that "Is Mliswa acting as a whistle-blower or as a strategist in a succession game?"
Let me highlight three red flags for us to consider:
Selective targeting – Mliswa goes hard on Chiwenga, but does he do the same to all major power players? He supports some figures (Tagwirei) and critiques others (Chiwenga). That differential suggests more than impartial moral outrage.
Personalisation of anti-corruption – The narrative sticks to one individual (Chiwenga) being “the problem”, rather than systemic reform. For instance: Mliswa says: “The fight against corruption should not be weaponised as a political gadget against rivals.”
Coordinated media messaging – While less directly verifiable, observers note how online news channels are amplifying discord within ZANU-PF and focusing heavily on this internal feud. A well-timed commentary like “the mirage of power” on Mliswa’s attacks suggests a broader campaign.
So what does this mean for the rest of us?
• If the agenda is genuine national reform, we should see an inclusive, transparent campaign across the board but not a one-man (or one-figure) spotlight.
• If the agenda is factional, we end up with a theatre of “anti-corruption” used as a tool to sideline rivals, while the system remains untouched.
• Real accountability demands strong institutions not just personalities pointing fingers. As Mliswa himself said: “Corruption is a national problem … cannot be hijacked for a few political points.”
In conclusion:
Yes, we must applaud any citizen willing to speak truth to power. But we must also remain vigilant. When the truth is wielded as a weapon in a power struggle, we risk trading one elite capture for another.
So the question we ask ourselves: "Is Themba Mliswa exposing corruption or is he playing politics with a different aim?"
Let us stay focused on principle, institution, and reform rather than personality, faction, and spectacle.
#Zimbabwe #Corruption #Accountability #ZANUPF
