BRENNA MATENDERE
The explosive allegations reportedly laid bare during a stormy Zanu PF politburo meeting on Wednesday, the last before the party’s annual conference next month have raised dust.
According to insiders, Vice President Constantino Chiwenga reportedly revealed that Zanu PF has a 45 percent in Sakunda.
Sources claim Chiwenga marched into the meeting armed with a dossier that stunned many in the room of nearly 50 member and said businessman Kuda Tagwirei siphoned at least US$3.2 billion through Zanu PF’s shadowy stake in Sakunda Holdings — an investment few had ever heard of.
The 45 percent shareholding, allegedly set up during Robert Mugabe’s presidency, was supposedly held in trust by President Emmerson Mnangagwa, Vice President Kembo Mohadi, and party legal secretary Patrick Chinamasa.
But instead of the party reaping dividends, Chiwenga charged, Tagwirei diverted the billions to fund loyalty networks within Zanu PF, funneled largely through flashy benefactors such as Wicknell Chivayo and gold dealer Scott Sakupwanya. GeoPomona boss Delish Nguwaya was also named as a key player.
Obert Masaraure, a prominent human rights defender and ARTUZ leader said the situation raises a case for Constitutional Integrity.
“The explosive revelations by Vice President General Chiwenga that ZANU-PF owns a stake in Sakunda Holdings automatically raises a red flag under the principles enshrined in the Zimbabwean Constitution. This admission, if true, should immediately disqualify Sakunda from receiving any further contracts for public works. This is not a political statement, but a constitutional one.
“A legal argument to bar such a practice would heavily rely on key sections of our 2013 constitution,” he said.
Citing Section 194: Principles of Public Administration and Public Assets, Masaraure said:
“This section is the bedrock of good governance. It mandates that a high standard of professional ethics, transparency, fairness, and honesty be maintained in public administration. When a company with ties to the ruling party is awarded a tender, it directly contravenes these principles. It creates a perception of influence and quid pro quo, undermining public trust and the fair and cost-effective use of public assets for the benefit of all Zimbabweans.
- Section 315: Procurement and Other Government Contracts.
“This section is even more explicit. It requires an Act of Parliament to prescribe public procurement procedures that are “transparent, fair, honest, cost-effective, and competitive.” It further demands the prevention of “corrupt practices” in the award of public contracts. A donation or a political party’s ownership of a contracting company could be argued as a form of corruption, as it gives an unfair advantage and undermines the competitive nature of the bidding process, violating the very spirit of the Constitution.”
He submitted that companies like Fossils, owned by individuals who donate to the ruling ZANU-PF party, should also be disqualified from tendering for public works because of the conflict of interest is clear and irreconcilable with the constitutional duties of public administration.
“Zimbabwe is not alone in grappling with this issue. Many countries have recognized the dangers of “pay-to-play” politics and have enacted specific laws to prevent it.
“The Philippine Omnibus Election Code (Batas Pambansa Blg. 881) provides a clear and powerful precedent. Section 95 of this law explicitly prohibits certain entities from making political contributions. Among those on the list are “natural and juridical persons who hold contracts or sub-contracts to supply the government or any of its divisions… with goods or services or to perform construction or other works.”
“This provision is a direct legal safeguard against the very conflict of interest highlighted in the Zimbabwean context. It establishes a bright-line rule: if you do business with the government, you cannot donate to political parties. This prevents the perception and reality of contractors buying influence or using public funds to enrich a political party,” said Masaraure.
Similarly, in the United States, federal law has a long-standing ban on political contributions from federal government contractors. This “pay-to-play” prohibition is a core part of campaign finance law, designed to prevent corruption and ensure that government contracts are awarded on merit, not political patronage.
Masaraure said these examples are not mere suggestions; they are proven legal frameworks that put the public interest first adding “they demonstrate that it is not only possible but essential to separate the business of public works from the business of politics.”
“The time has come for Zimbabwe to enforce the constitutional principles that are already in place and to consider adopting a clear, explicit legal ban on political donations from public works contractors. The public’s money should be used to build a better future, not to fund political campaigns. The integrity of the State and the well-being of its citizens depend on it. Instituting the desired change.
“The urgent task is to approach the Courts seeking a declarator barring benefactors of political parties and party owned entities from being contracted on any public works projects.
“Parliament should be approached to seek the amendment of procurement laws and political financing act to integrate the envisaged progressive change,” said the ARTUZ leader.
