A party at odds with its own constitution

By Newsday | Dec 16, 2025 | 3 Min read

At the centre of the controversy is the attempted co-option of President Emmerson Mnangagwa investment adviser Paul Tungwarara, a move that was nullified by the party’s political commissar, Munyaradzi Machacha, for violating established procedures. Pic Christine

THE ruling Zanu PF has once again exposed deep contradictions within its own ranks after issuing conflicting statements over the filling of a vacant central committee position in Manicaland province.

According to the Zanu PF constitution, the vacant seat must be filled by a candidate from Chipinge district. The position fell vacant after Dorothy Mabika, the Chipinge representative, was elected Manicaland provincial Women’s League chairperson.

In line with party rules, the vacancy should, therefore, have been filled by a Women’s League representative from Chipinge. Instead, Tungwarara was endorsed at an extraordinary provincial coordinating committee meeting held in Mutare, triggering resistance from the party’s national structures.

In a letter addressed to Manicaland provincial chairperson Tawanda Mukodza, Machacha declared the co-option a nullity “with immediate effect,” citing a violation of a Legal Affairs Department circular dated June 30, 2025. The circular outlines mandatory guidelines and procedures governing the co-option of members to the central committee.

Among its key provisions is the requirement that replacement must be drawn from the same administrative district as the outgoing member — a principle intended to preserve balanced representation and prevent the arbitrary imposition of candidates.

Machacha stressed that the appropriate candidate must originate from Chipinge administrative district to uphold the party’s “established principle of representation and ensure equitable distribution of seats across all administrative districts”.

He further warned that until the matter is resolved and Chipinge district reaches a decision, “any activities that involve the issuance of money, goods or services by aspiring candidates will be deemed vote buying and will lead to automatic disqualification.”

Keep Reading

The political commissar urged Manicaland’s leadership to conduct a fresh, constitutionally-compliant co-option process.

Machacha’s position received backing from senior party figures, including Zanu PF treasurer-general Patrick Chinamasa. Writing on X, Chinamasa said: “I support the decision of Cde Machacha 100%, indeed wholeheartedly, for the reasons given and more. Those who have eyes, let them ‘eye’, and those who have ears, let them ‘ear’.”

However, the party soon descended into mixed messaging. Zanu PF spokesperson Christopher Mutsvangwa appeared to contradict Machacha, saying the matter would ultimately be finalised by the party’s politburo — a statement that casts doubt on whether constitutional provisions and internal regulations will be upheld or overridden by political expediency.

This contradiction lays bare a troubling pattern within the ruling party: rules appear to be enforced selectively, depending on political interests and internal power dynamics.

The Tungwarara co-option saga raises far-reaching questions. If Zanu PF struggles to adhere to its own constitution during internal processes, can Zimbabweans have confidence that it will respect national laws and democratic norms?

A party that casually disregards its own rulebook signals a deeper governance problem. Internal constitutional violations often foreshadow broader institutional decay, where power is exercised arbitrarily and legal frameworks are treated as obstacles rather than binding commitments.

These concerns are further amplified by ongoing debate within Zanu PF over President Mnangagwa’s tenure. Zimbabwe’s Constitution clearly limits presidents to two terms, meaning Mnangagwa’s mandate ends in 2028. Yet a faction within the ruling party is openly pushing to extend his stay in office to 2030.

While Mnangagwa has repeatedly stated that he will step down when his term expires, the persistence of succession manipulation — both within party structures and in national discourse — undermines his assurance.

The Manicaland saga may appear, on the surface, to be a minor internal dispute over a single central committee seat. In reality, it reflects a much deeper problem: a ruling party grappling with constitutional discipline at a time when the country urgently needs respect for the rule of law.

If Zanu PF cannot obey its own constitution, Zimbabweans are justified to question its probity in upholding the supreme law of the land.