CONTROVERSIAL businessman Wicknell Chivayo’s gifts to Members of Parliament debating constitutional amendments to extend President Emmerson Mnangagwa’s term are illegal, legal experts have said.
Parliament’s ongoing debate on the controversial Constitution Amendment No. 3 Bill was plunged into disarray this week amid allegations that lawmakers are being rewarded with cash and luxury vehicles for supporting the proposed changes.
The accusations have intensified divisions in the National Assembly, where legislators aligned with the ruling Zanu PF party and Citizens Coalition for Change (CCC) self-imposed faction leader Sengezo Tshabangu are backing the Bill, while MPs loyal to CCC leader Jameson Timba have mounted fierce resistance.
NewsDay Weekender is reliably informed that legislators supporting the Bill received US$50 000 in cash.
The controversy deepened on Thursday after Chivayo publicly announced that he had gifted CCC-Tshabangu legislator Samantha Mureyani a latest top-of-the-range Toyota Fortuner and US$50 000 cash.
Ironically, Mureyani had earlier on the same day threatened legal action against NewsDay after this reporter sought comment on information suggesting she had been rewarded following her parliamentary contribution in support of the Bill.
Keep Reading
- Corruption Watch: Get scared, 2023 is coming
- Corruption Watch: Get scared, 2023 is coming
- Letters: Ensuring Africa’s food security through availability of quality seeds
- Is military's involvement in politics compatible with democracy?
Yesterday, Chivayo announced a similar package — a 2026 Toyota Fortuner edition and US$50 000 — for Zanu PF legislator Remigious Matangira.
Constitutional lawyer Musa Kika described the developments as potentially criminal and a direct assault on parliamentary integrity.
“The Parliament of Zimbabwe Code of Conduct and Ethics requires disclosure of any gift exceeding US$4 500 in a single year,” Kika said.
“The same code prohibits promoting a matter in Parliament for financial gain or benefit”.
Kika said Section 170 of the Criminal Law (Codification and Reform) Act criminalises bribery, while Section 174 outlines the offence of criminal abuse of public office.
He also cited Section 18 of the Privileges, Immunities and Powers of Parliament Act, which explicitly states that no member shall “accept or receive, directly or indirectly, any fee, compensation, gift or reward for or in respect of the promotion of or opposition to any Bill, petition, resolution, motion or other matter submitted to Parliament”.
“Chivayo’s gifts and rewards are criminal, and it is morally reprehensible for any Member of Parliament to accept such undue gifts and benefits,” Kika added.
“It goes against the very constitutional duty of a Member of Parliament, who is required to represent their constituency diligently and with integrity.
“This violates all notions of good, responsible and constitutional governance.”
Despite the growing outrage, Tshabangu’s camp appeared unbothered by the controversy.
Responding to questions from NewsDay Weekender, Tshabangu’s spokesperson, Nqobizitha Mlilo, dismissed concerns over the gifts and rewards.
“They are non-issues to us. They are just morbid symptoms showing us that we are in a transition. In moments like the one we are in, all kinds of things happen,” Mlilo said.
“We must focus on delivering for our people a better deal than the 1987 Unity Accord and the 2008 GPA [Global Political Agreement].
“The rest are side shows. All we want is our political pound of flesh, a Government of National Consensus”. He added: “We must break Zimbabwe’s decades-long cycle of highly polarised, winner-takes-all toxic politics”.
“We want an environment which fosters national unity and consensus for economic stability. That outcome is far better than endless partisan bickering. Our people will be the ultimate beneficiaries”.
The Zimbabwe Constitutional Movement (Zicomo) also condemned what it described as attempts to influence MPs through personal benefits.
“Zimbabwe is not for sale,” the organisation said in a statement yesterday, urging legislators to vote according to their conscience when the Bill comes before Parliament.
“This issue transcends politics; it is about our legacy. MPs must remember why they sit in Parliament,” Zicomo stated.
“They are representatives of the people who crafted the 2013 Constitution, rejected life presidency and entrenched term limits to protect democracy from personal rule”.
Zicomo accused some opposition legislators of abandoning principle for personal convenience and warned that any attempt to alter constitutional term limits without popular approval would amount to a betrayal of public trust.
“Today, we will witness who truly represents the interests of the people and who is waiting for an opportunity to betray them for personal gain,” the organisation said.
Social and political commentator Jacob Kudzayi Mutisi yesterday petitioned Parliament, the Zimbabwe Anti-Corruption Commission, the police and the Zimbabwe Lawyers for Human Rights over the inducements.
He stated that he was seeking clarification regarding the legal implications “should any Member of Parliament accept money, gifts, rewards, benefits or any form of consideration intended to influence the manner in which they vote, debate, support, oppose or otherwise participate in the legislative process”.
Mutisi cited the Constitution, particularly provisions relating to public office, integrity, accountability, transparency and the responsibilities of elected representatives.
He also made reference to Chapter 9 of the Constitution, the Criminal Law (Codification and Reform) Act [Chapter 9:23], the Anti-Corruption Commission Act, the Privileges, Immunities and Powers of Parliament Act, and any parliamentary codes of conduct governing the acceptance of gifts or inducements by Members of Parliament.
Mutisi asked: “What legal consequences may arise if a Member of Parliament accepts payment or any other benefit in exchange for supporting or opposing legislation?
“Could such conduct constitute bribery, corruption, criminal abuse of office, misconduct, or any other offence under Zimbabwean law?
“What parliamentary disciplinary procedures are available should such allegations be substantiated?
“Are Members of Parliament required to declare gifts, benefits, donations, or payments which may create an actual or perceived conflict of interest?”
“Which institutions have jurisdiction to investigate such allegations and what processes are available to members of the public to lodge formal complaints?”
He said public confidence in Parliament and constitutional governance depends not only on adherence to the law, but also on openness and accountability by public office bearers, adding that “clarification of the legal position and any applicable investigative processes would, therefore, be in the public interest”.
Contacted for comment, Zanu PF chief whip Pupurai Togarepi said he could not immediately respond to what he described as unverified claims.
“It will be difficult for me to comment on speculation,” he said.
“If ever that is true, I may need to understand the context in which the money or cars were given before I can have an opinion.
“Many a time, the true story and what is on social media differ. I have to check the facts first and I will come back to you”.
Legislators are expected to vote for the Bill next week.