AMHVoices: Chitungwiza mayor case must be settled soonest


We, as the residents of Chitungwiza, were shocked and let down by the recent suspension by the High Court of our mayor and deputy mayor.

Chitrest information desk

While we respect the court’s decision, we are of the view that the suspension is a digression of progress due to the following reasons:

 The mayor and his deputy had begun their terms in earnest. They had hit the ground running and as expected of them, we demanded them to deliver world class service.

 We are of the view that the procedural defect as postulated by the High Court is secondary to our needs and expectation from the councillors since all 25 councillors were respectively elected by us residents who are the ratepayers.

 The recent outbreak of waterborne diseases such as typhoid and cholera needing mitigating measures are likely to be hampered, thus progress will decelerate.

 The suspension is a result of minority councillors, hence is of no effect as the mayor and his deputy are from the majority party. The minority councillors’ motive is known to them, as the suspension will serve their desires rather than of us residents.

 We had seen a lot of engagement between residents and the council through the urgent address of needy services such as the speedy attendance to sewer bursts, so the suspension will delay most service delivery.

 The mayor and his deputy, having an oversight role in the running of the council’s affairs, their suspension leaves a very big void.

 Our council has been lagging behind in terms of development and service delivery, hence any disturbance/undue interference of those accountable to the electorate will provide them with a scapegoat for non-performance.

 We, as the electorate, elected and/or ratepayers entrusted the mayor and his deputy with our hopes of reviving the town’s fortunes.

 We are also of the view that the suspension is an unnecessary distraction on the mayor and his deputy. Time lost during the suspension will never be redeemed.

Having this scenario, we hereby pray that the High Court determines the case with the urgency it deserves as it is us the residents who are prejudiced by the continued absence of a substantive mayor.


  1. Let us not have double standards here. The moment we give thumbs down for the court ruling we will open floodgates for errand leaders. Let me give you an example- one so-called chef will buy misappropriate funds say buying leather sofas for his office instead of buying say computers. His argument will be that the purchase remains property of the government. Laws and rules are there to safe guide us. The questions of majority does not have any weight at all. The law has to be followed

Comments are closed.