In February 2026, Transparency International downplayed Zimbabwe’s efforts in the fight against corruption using indicators that are way off the mark as they ignore several and far-reaching measures that have been introduced by the government to combat corruption.
The CPI is a perception-based global ranking that exaggerates expert surveys and assessments, which in most cases does not fully capture verifiable progress in our anti-corruption efforts including institutional reforms, enforcement outcomes, asset recovery and systematic changes within the public sector.
According to TI’s 2025 CPI, Zimbabwe is ranked number 157 out of 182 countries. The ranking means that Zimbabwe occupies a position which is at the tail end of the highly corrupt countries in the world, a position which is being fiercely contested by the Zimbabwe Anti-Corruption Commission (Zacc).
In 2024, the country was ranked 158 out of 180 countries that were assessed, with a score of 21 out of 100. These figures indicate a high level of perceived corruption in the country. Zimbabwe’s Regional position of 12 most corrupt countries in Africa underscores the persistent perception gap even as evidence-based reforms demonstrate tangible progress at national level.
As alluded earlier, TI ranks countries and territories based on how corrupt their public sector is perceived to be. Where the country is ranked first, it is perceived to have the most honest public sector.
The focus of this article is to debunk and dismantle the legitimacy and utility of the CPI in capturing Zimbabwe’s anti-corruption trajectory, taking into account the existing tangible gains realized in 2025 by all the relevant domestic stakeholders in the fight against corruption.
Zimbabwe strongly opposes and disagrees with the recently-announced Transparency International’s global Corruption Perception Index (CPI) results for 2025 because both the instruments and methods used to measure the extent of corruption in the country are biased and do not reflect the true picture of tangible positive developments on the ground.
To back up this argument, it is essential to consider the Constitutional and institutional framework that shapes Zimbabwe’s anti-corruption architecture.
In our situation, Zacc collaborates with other law enforcement agencies like the Zimbabwe Republic Police (ZRP), Reserve Bank of Zimbabwe’s Financial Intelligence Unit (FIU), Zimbabwe Revenue Authority (Zimra), state security as well as the National Prosecuting Authority (NPA), whose task, among other ancillary functions, is to institute and undertake criminal prosecutions on behalf of the State.
Under the guidance of prosecutor-general Justice Loyce Matanda-Moyo, the NPA has undergone a comprehensive transformation, including a modern rebranding and institutional reform program that signals transparency and accessibility. This reform agenda aligns with a broader policy shift towards efficiency, accountability and public engagement, which is a plus for Zimbabwe.
In addition to that, Zacc, on its part, has intensified collaboration with the NPA, the Judiciary and other allied anti-graft units in Government, thereby reducing turf wars and in the process promoting a unified front against corruption. Within the Judiciary we now have anti-corruption courts established to try corruption-related cases as well as fast-track court system meant to expedite finalisation of cases.
There is no doubt that the emphasis on inter-agency co-operation reflects an important systematic improvement that supports faster case handling and more coherent prosecutions.
Going by the 2025 collective outputs, several important achievements also stood out. For example, Zacc referred 250 dockets to the NPA for possible prosecution. The commission also referred 32 civil cases for asset forfeiture. Through these collaborative efforts, the Zimbabwe Government, through the NPA, seized and froze more than US$$51 million in illicit wealth during the course of last year. Going forward, these coordinated crack downs on unscrupulous characters will continue.
On top of that, Zacc, through its prevention of corruption department conducted more than 80 public awareness campaigns, carried out more than 60 systems review (compliance checks) in various public institutions while more than 10 600 individuals in both the public and private sectors signed integrity pledges. Some of those who signed were either government ministers or senior civil servants including chief executives of private companies or state-owned enterprises.
During the course of last year, more than 80 integrity committees were established in both public and private institutions as a preventive measure against localised corruption.
The argument, therefore, is while TI’s CPI offers a comparative lens, there is a risk that it undervalues or simply ignores these national operational gains. Obviously, the disconnect between perception and measurable outcomes can impede policy legitimacy, affect investor confidence and influence international support unless challenged or complemented by a robust outcome-based monitoring matrix.
Therefore, the CPI’s omission of Zimbabwe-specific anti-corruption dynamics, such as asset recovery magnitudes, border control reforms, public communication campaigns and inter-agency co-operation, limits its usefulness in terms of domestic policy formulation.
The problem, therefore, is to reconcile perception-based indicators with concrete, verifiable progress in order to inform a credible and effective anti-corruption policy agenda.
The juxtaposition of CPI results with domestic achievements invites a critical examination of how perception indices capture or fail to capture the dynamic realities of anti-corruption reforms in Zimbabwe.
In 2025 alone, Zacc working with the NPA facilitated seizure of assets worth over US$9 million, a clear indication of the seriousness with which the government of Zimbabwe is pursuing assets which would have been corruptly acquired. These are some of the success stories ignored by Transparency International.
According to TI, they obtain their data from some regional and international institutions, most of which do not have offices in Harare and whose agendas are unknown. When it comes to data collection used for these rankings, the local chapter of Transparency International, T.I. Zimbabwe, is just a by-stander, it has no control or influence on it. Equally our own local institutions like the Zimbabwe National Statistical Agency (Zimstat), play no role in these rankings and are never consulted, which makes the CPI suspect.
In the case of Zimbabwe, the CPI is done by about nine (9) foreign-based organisations which have nothing to do with fighting corruption, but other focus on things to do with governance and other socio-economic and political issues. Therefore, the methodology used by these foreign-based entities is not scientific and does not provide empirical evidence but relies heavily on negative media reports the so-called independent press or from biased information provided by political activists.
Simply put, the CPI relies heavily on desktop research or surveys by unknown experts, non-state actors and activists. In most cases these CPI assessments frequently trail behind real-time policy reforms and institutional changes, thereby diluting recognition of progress in areas such as asset recovery, backlog case reduction and inter-agency collaboration. In addition, there is a glaring omission of enforcement outcomes in the CPI framework.
In our case, as Zimbabwe, measurable outcomes such as case clearance rates, asset recovery amounts, the quantum of successful convictions and other related ancillary issues, are not weighted or fully captured by TI and its partners, resulting in a mismatch between domestic gains and perceived corruption levels. It is also worth noting that among other things, electoral reforms are considered as one of the indicators for the CPI, yet there is no co-relation between corruption and elections.
However, despite a low CPI score of 22 out of 100 in 2025, Zimbabwe has made significant and concrete gains in prosecutions, asset recovery, international co-operation coupled by an assortment of reform initiatives such as our national mantra “Zimbabwe is open for business.” This is also complemented by President Emmerson Mnangagwa’s clarion call to “zero tolerance to corruption.”
These and other positive developments suggest notable progress that go beyond what perception-based indices might capture, therefore, highlighting the need by TI to balance perception indicators with tangible outcomes.
In light of these perpetual negative perceptions, several strategic actions are proposed to strengthen Zimbabwe’s anti-corruption architecture going forward.
As a country, in order for us to counter the negative perceptions by Transparency International and its allies, we need to urgently develop our own National Anti-Corruption Dashboard that combines case metrics such as the number of dockets referred to the NPA, cases completed, convictions rate and sentencing outcomes, assets recovered including the amounts recovered, freezing court orders and forfeitures.
This dashboard is to be publicly accessible and be subjected to independent audit oversight to build credibility. As Zimbabwe, our priority should be to institutionalise an anti-corruption results framework. This involves finalizing and implementing the National Anti-Corruption Dashboard, designed to integrate the NPA, Zacc, ZRP, Zimra, FIU and the Auditor-General.
Taking into account all the competing views mentioned earlier in this article, it is argued that time is ripe for Zimbabwe to domesticate its own home-grown perception index using our own local institutions like ZimStat, to measure ourselves using tangible and measurable gains as the barometer and ignore what is published by the so-called anti-corruption advocacy organisations.
By recognising tangible, measurable gains and aligning policy responses to the realities, Zimbabwe can further strengthen its governance systems, attract more foreign investment and in the process uphold and strength public trust. On its part, Zacc and its allies will continue to pursue a robust coordinated anti-corruption agenda in line with the National Development Strategy (NDS2).
By downplaying Zimbabwe’s effort in the fight against corruption using indicators that are not scientific as they ignore positive developments that have been introduced by Mnangagwa’s administration in combatting corruption, its fatal.
*Commissioner Kindness Paradza is the spokesman for Zacc and he writes this in his official capacity