Zimbabwe’s ruling party fractures: treason charge exposes a widening succession battle
President Emmerson Mnangagwa has accused his deputy, Constantino Chiwenga, of incitement and treason after Chiwenga reportedly circulated a dossier to the Zanu PF politburo alleging party capture and corruption. The confrontation — played out through a newly appointed legal affairs secretary and a thick, contested memo — marks a striking public rupture inside the movement that has governed Zimbabwe for more than four decades.
- Advertisement -
What happened
On the surface the dispute is pecuniary and procedural: Chiwenga’s dossier reportedly criticises party corruption, argues against extending Mnangagwa’s tenure beyond the two-term constitutional limit and calls for internal reforms. Mnangagwa’s camp, speaking through Legal Affairs Secretary Ziyambi Ziyambi, dismissed the document as “fundamentally flawed” and “treasonous,” saying it sought the unlawful removal of a constitutionally elected president.
The exchange intensified as Ziyambi suggested Chiwenga had misread Zanu PF’s internal rules and the 2024 conference resolutions that undergird a party “2030 Agenda.” The dispute now threatens to dominate the agenda at Zanu PF’s National People’s Conference in Mutare, setting the stage for a high-stakes showdown over who will run the party — and the country — into the next decade.
The protagonists and the stakes
Mnangagwa, 81, is the veteran of a liberation generation who emerged as president after the army removed Robert Mugabe in 2017, an intervention in which Chiwenga — a retired general and now vice president — played a central role. That history makes this quarrel more than a factional spat: it pits two figures whose political alliance once reshaped the country against each other, and raises the possibility that the military’s influence in politics could reappear as a decisive factor.
Chiwenga, a man with deep ties to the security establishment, is widely seen as an arbiter of force in Zimbabwean politics. Mnangagwa, having consolidated control since Mugabe’s fall, now faces an open challenge that could split the party, re-energise patronage networks and unsettle an already fragile economy.
Why the legal argument matters
At the heart of the dispute is the interpretation of constitutions — both national and party — and the authority they confer. Zimbabwe’s 2013 constitution established a two-term limit for presidents, a guardrail designed to prevent life-long incumbencies. Chiwenga’s reported opposition to extending Mnangagwa’s rule beyond that limit frames him as a defender of constitutional order. Mnangagwa’s response, however, accuses Chiwenga of attempting to subvert the constitution through internal party manoeuvres.
These arguments are not merely academic. In ruling parties where formal institutions are weak, internal party rules, plenaries and politburos become the real arenas in which succession battles are fought. When those rules are contested, the results can be messy: expulsions, parallel party structures, or worse — a reversion to the backroom deals and security interventions that have often marked Zimbabwe’s political life.
Domestic consequences: governance and economy at risk
For ordinary Zimbabweans, who have endured recurrent economic shocks, hyperinflation in the 2000s, and the collapse of public services, a high-profile intra-party conflict threatens stability at a precarious moment. Investor confidence — already sapped by years of isolation and sanctions — could drain further if political paralysis intensifies. Tourism, agriculture and remittances — lifelines for many households — are sensitive to perceptions of political risk.
Beyond the economy, the danger is institutional. A prolonged fight risks normalising the idea that senior security figures can act as kingmakers rather than stay within constitutional bounds. That would reverse gains made since 2017 in reasserting civilian control, however partial, and could trigger a cycle in which future leaders rely on factions rather than ballots.
Regional and global context
Succession battles within long-governing parties are not unique to Zimbabwe. Across Africa, from the Sahel to southern Africa, ruling-party splits, constitutional tinkering and the politicisation of the military have reshaped political orders. Internationally, powers with interests in southern Africa — including China, which has deep economic ties to Zimbabwe, and Western capitals wary of instability — will watch closely. Regional bodies such as the Southern African Development Community (SADC) often intervene as mediators in moments of elite breakdown; how they respond could determine whether the dispute is contained or escalates.
What could happen next?
- Containment through party arbitration: Zanu PF could use the Mutare conference to reassert a managed succession plan and marginalise dissenters, at least temporarily.
- Escalation and factional partition: The party could split into rival camps, each mobilising patronage networks and seeking control of the party machinery in provinces and ministries.
- Security intervention: Given Chiwenga’s military background, there is the perennial risk that security forces could be deployed to influence outcomes, a prospect that would alarm both citizens and foreign partners.
Questions for Zimbabweans and the international community
Will the Zanu PF conference in Mutare be a platform for accountability and renewal, or a theatre for the re-entrenchment of patronage? Can Zimbabwe’s institutions — courts, civil service, parliament — withstand an elite confrontation without collapsing into personalised power play? And for outside actors, what level of engagement can stabilise democratic processes without appearing to favour one faction over another?
This is a moment when the contours of Zimbabwe’s next decade could be redrawn. The charges of treason and the counterclaims of constitutional fidelity are less about legal niceties than about who controls access to the state and its resources. For millions of Zimbabweans, the deeper question remains: will the next chapter restore governance that serves citizens, or entrench a narrower struggle for power?
By News-room
Axadle Times international–Monitoring.
