Zimbabwe’s ruling party came under renewed scrutiny this week, following an explosive report by media watchdog INTELWATCH, which accuses it of orchestrating a sustained campaign of intimidation against journalists and critics.
At the centre of the findings is what INTELWATCH says is the emergence of organised digital groups aligned with Zanu PF tasked with defending the party and silencing dissent in increasingly aggressive ways.
“One such storm trooper group is known as Varakashi,” INTELWATCH said.
Varakashi is a Shona word meaning destroyers.
“This group has become a serious threat to journalists and it also patrols cyberspace, specifically tasked with defending the ruling party and its leadership.”
The Johannesburg based watchdog said the group emerged following calls by Zanu PF rallying party youths to “thrash the opposition on social media” ahead of the 2018 elections, which turned bloody after protesters were shot in post - election violence.
Keep Reading
- ‘Massive deception over Zimbabwean journalism’... state mounts web of firewalls criminalising press freedoms: Report
- Repression refined: Zim’s war on the media
INTELWATCH argues that what followed was a rapid expansion of coordinated online campaigns that have reshaped Zimbabwe’s media landscape, with relentless attacks mostly on journalists working in the privately controlled media.
This week, Zanu PF director on information, Farai Marapira did not respond to the Zimbabwe Independent’s questions. But in government, Nick Mangwana, permanent secretary in the Ministry of Information said: “The government operates within the bounds of the law. There is no “expansion of surveillance capabilities” for the purposes of targeting journalists”.
“The security apparatus of Zimbabwe, like that of any other country, is focused on threats to national security, not on suppressing legitimate reporting. It is important to scrutinise the messenger,” Mangwana said.
“The report comes from INTELWATCH, a self-described “campaign” organisation based in South Africa. A quick examination of their recent activities reveals a pattern of making sensational claims against African governments to garner international attention.
We, therefore, view this latest report on Zimbabwe with the same skepticism it deserves. It is a recycled collection of old tropes designed to undermine the country's image, ignoring the tangible legislative reforms and the reality on the ground,” he added.
But INTELWATCH said “repression” of the media in Zimbabwe was no longer sporadic, but deliberate, coordinated and evolving. While violence has historically accompanied elections, the report said it now increasingly takes more sophisticated and less visible forms.
The battleground has shifted online, according to the report.
It says operating through networks of anonymous or pseudonymous accounts, Varakashi and similar groups engage in targeted harassment designed to discredit journalists, opposition figures and civil society actors.
Their methods include mockery, name-calling and sustained campaigns aimed at eroding credibility, INTELWATCH claims.
It says a central tactic is delegitimisation, as journalists are routinely labelled as foreign agents or accused of being unpatriotic for criticising the government. Beyond insults, the report documents cases of explicit threats, including warnings of physical and sexual violence.
“These are not random outbursts,” INTELWATCH noted, “but calculated efforts designed to instil fear and force behavioural change.”
It says the consequences are increasingly visible. Journalists are withdrawing from public engagement, avoiding sensitive topics and, in some cases, abandoning stories altogether.
INTELWATCH paints a picture of a country where the boundaries of acceptable speech are narrowing under sustained pressure, and where self-censorship is becoming a survival strategy.
In December, a new group calling itself the Zimbabwe Anti-Presidential Criticism Team publicly announced its formation, declaring its mission to confront and suppress criticism of the president. INTELWATCH said the group has claimed authority to police the thoughts, speech and opinions of citizens, particularly on social media.
Observers say such developments represent a significant escalation.
They say what was once informal intimidation has begun to resemble a more structured system of control, blending online harassment with broader political pressure. Analysts warn that Zimbabwe is edging towards a surveillance-style environment in which fear, rather than law, governs expression.
This transformation is driven by growing convergence between formal authority and informal enforcement. INTELWATCH says State power and party-aligned networks are increasingly operating in parallel, creating a seamless web of pressure that extends from official institutions into digital spaces.
Social media, once seen as a democratising force, has become a hostile terrain.
For journalists, the impact is both professional and deeply personal.
The experience of a NewsDay journalist, cited in the INTELWATCH report, illustrates the weight of the problem.
After co-authoring a story on the reopening of schools following the Covid-19 pandemic, she became the target of a sustained online attack led by a senior Zanu PF official.
“He called me ‘a news rapist’ and put my picture to his X post,” she said. “I was just assisting my colleague. But it appears he picked on me because I am a woman.”
What followed was a torrent of abuse from the official’s followers. They rained in the form of insults, threats and degrading commentary that quickly spiralled. The psychological toll has endured.
“Since then I am rarely active on social media,” she said. “Sometimes I lose confidence. I start thinking about how people might react to whatever I post.”
Her experience is far from isolated. Another journalist was similarly targeted after pursuing a story on foreign investment in Zimbabwe’s lithium sector.
The message, according to the report, was that certain subjects are off-limits.
Female journalists appear particularly vulnerable, but their male counterparts have also been arrested and put on trial.
The Gender and Media Coalition of Zimbabwe found that nearly two thirds of female journalists have experienced technology-facilitated gender based violence.
Much of the abuse is intensely personal, often laced with misogyny and aimed at exploiting perceived vulnerability, INTELWATCH said.
These incidents point to a broader system in which politically aligned actors operate with apparent impunity, emboldened by an environment that tolerates, and at times appears to encourage, such behaviour.
But digital intimidation is only one layer of pressure.
Legal mechanisms continue to play a significant role. Journalists are frequently arrested under broadly defined charges such as “communicating falsehoods” or “inciting violence.”
These cases rarely result in convictions, but they serve as effective tools of intimidation, reinforcing the risks associated with critical reporting.
While Mangwana rejected the claims, INTELWATCH claimed surveillance adds another dimension. It claimed security agencies monitor communications under the guise of national interest, contributing to a pervasive sense of being watched. For journalists, the perception of surveillance is often enough to alter behaviour, encouraging caution and silence.
The unresolved disappearance of journalist and activist Itai Dzamara in 2015 continues to cast a long shadow over the profession, serving as a reminder of the potential consequences of speaking out and the absence of accountability.
At the same time, economic pressures within the media sector are compounding the crisis. News organisations are struggling to survive amid declining revenues and shrinking audiences.
Such conditions create vulnerabilities that can erode professional independence. These pressures form an interconnected system that constrains media freedom, one analyst said. Digital harassment, legal intimidation, economic hardship and surveillance do not operate in isolation, another analyst said, noting that “they reinforce one another, creating an environment in which dissent becomes increasingly difficult to sustain”.
INTELWATCH argued that this represents a shift from episodic “repression” to a more durable and adaptive model of control.
“The implications extend beyond the media sector. In a functioning democracy, the ability to question authority is fundamental. But when that space contracts, the effects ripple outward, shaping public discourse and limiting the flow of information available to citizens”.
Online publication ZimLive, quoted in the report, described the emergence of organised anti-criticism groups as a dangerous step towards an “authoritarian” model in which surveillance and intimidation undermine basic freedoms.
“What these zealots (groups) announced is not politics. It is not patriotism. It is the institutionalisation of fear,” the outlet said.
Warnings that Zimbabwe is moving towards a system where citizens self-censor not out of respect, but fear are no longer confined to debate, but for many journalists, this is already a lived reality.
The space for independent reporting is shrinking through formal censorship, and the cumulative weight of sustained pressure.
Stories are left unwritten and critical voices are growing quieter,” an analyst said. “Editorial decisions become more cautious. In such an environment, journalism is no longer just a profession but a risk.”
Zimbabwe’s media landscape is being reshaped into one where speaking out requires calculation, criticism carries consequences, and silence is often the safest option.
Democratic decline in such contexts is rarely sudden but unfolds gradually through the steady erosion of institutions, the normalisation of intimidation and the quiet retreat of those tasked with holding power to account.
What remains may still resemble a democracy in form, but its substance is diminished.
And within that weakened space, power operates with fewer constraints.