SEVERAL Zanu PF affiliates say they are in solidarity with the co-option of President Emmerson Mnangagwa’s investments adviser Paul Tungwarara to the party’s central committee by the Manicaland province, amid reported internal resistance.
The provincial executive confirmed Tungwarara’s appointment to fill a vacancy left by Dorothy Mabika, who was elected provincial women’s league chairperson.
However, the decision has faced opposition from within the party, including national political commissar Munyaradzi Machacha, who overturned the move saying Tungwarara does not hail from the respective administrative district.
Despite this directive, party sources indicate that Tungwarara has assumed the position, with his status reportedly affirmed at a meeting at Mutare Girls High School last weekend.
In a show of support, leaders of affiliates publicly endorsed the province’s decision.
“We stand in solidarity with the noble cause by Zanu PF Manicaland to co-opt Dr Tungwarara,” said Samora Chisvo of the Vendors for ED.
“He is a philanthropist par excellence, spearheading numerous presidential empowerment projects.
“Many vendors have benefited from revolving funds and are in business thanks to his efforts.
- NoViolet Bulawayo’s new novel is an instant Zimbabwean classic
- Jah Prayzah, Zanu PF rekindles ‘lost love’
- Bank workers appeal to Ncube for tax relief
- Indosakusa marks 21-year anniversary milestone
Keep Reading
“The Zanu PF constitution is clear on such processes and there is a body tasked with selection. We are in solidarity.”
Manicaland provincial chairperson for Boyz DzaMdhara, Trymore Bhobho Chimbongora, said: “We are in full solidarity with the province in co-opting the President’s adviser to the central committee. We are aware of the selection body, but we support him.”
Other affiliates, including Young Women for ED and Vapostori for Economic Development, also expressed backing for Tungwarara’s co-option, highlighting a co-ordinated show of support from the party’s grassroots and sectoral wings at a time when there is a procedural dispute.
