Chairperson of the Parliamentary Portfolio Committee on Budget, Finance, Economic Development and Investment Promotion, Dr. Energy Mutodi, has publicly apologised to Finance Ministry Permanent Secretary George Guvamatanga after levelling allegations of misconduct against him on social media.
The dramatic climbdown followed a series of tweets in which Mutodi suggested irregularities in the way the Treasury handled payments. While the remarks were framed as part of his parliamentary oversight role, the lack of substantiated evidence eventually forced him to retract and issue an apology.
In a press release, Mutodi admitted that although his initial concerns were raised in good faith, they had not been backed by verifiable proof.
“I therefore wish to issue an apology, unreservedly, to Mr George Guvamatanga for the reputational damage the tweets may have caused,” he said.
Mutodi added that he had already instructed that all the contentious tweets be deleted.
The outspoken legislator explained that his tweets were intended to reflect Parliament’s constitutional duty to hold the Executive accountable, citing Section 119(3) of the Constitution. The section mandates Parliament to ensure that all state institutions act in the national interest and within the bounds of the law.
However, Mutodi conceded that his failure to produce evidence that met the threshold of “proof beyond reasonable doubt” meant the allegations crossed into the territory of defamation.
“The concerns I raised were genuine, but in the absence of verifiable facts, the statements became unfair and damaging,” he said.
The retraction followed what Mutodi described as a “fruitful telephone discussion” with Guvamatanga earlier in the week. The conversation reportedly helped both men appreciate the gravity of the dispute and its potential impact on public trust in government.
Following the discussion, Mutodi decided that continuing to pursue the matter through social media would be counterproductive and not in the national interest. Instead, he opted for a reconciliatory approach aimed at defusing tensions between Parliament and the Ministry of Finance at a time when the government is under increased scrutiny over spending priorities.
Mutodi Issues Public Apology to Guvamatanga Over Defamatory Allegations
The apology comes against the backdrop of heightened public debate over the management of national resources. Zimbabwe’s fiscal space has been stretched by growing demands on government to finance infrastructure, social services, and debt repayments. Allegations of misuse of funds—whether proven or not—tend to gain traction quickly in the public arena.
Observers note that Mutodi’s original remarks tapped into wider frustrations about transparency in the handling of public finances. However, by failing to substantiate the claims, he risked eroding confidence in parliamentary oversight mechanisms, while simultaneously damaging the reputation of a key civil servant.
This is not the first time Mutodi, a former government minister, has found himself at the centre of controversy for his outspoken style. Known for his willingness to take bold positions, Mutodi has often framed himself as a defender of accountability and good governance.
In this case, however, he acknowledged that his zeal had overstepped into personal attack. “My comments were intended to highlight issues of principle,” he said, “but they unintentionally inflicted reputational harm.”
The move to apologise marks a rare moment of concession from the legislator, who has built his political persona around defiance and public critique.
While Guvamatanga has not issued a detailed public statement in response to the apology, those close to the Finance Ministry view the matter as closed. Sources indicated that the Permanent Secretary preferred not to escalate the issue, instead focusing on his mandate of ensuring fiscal stability.
Analysts suggest that Guvamatanga’s decision not to pursue legal action reflects both political pragmatism and a desire to avoid further fuelling speculation.
The episode underscores the delicate balance between parliamentary oversight and responsible public discourse. At a time when citizens are increasingly turning to digital platforms to debate governance issues, the line between accountability and defamation has become blurred.
Political analysts argue that while social media offers legislators a direct channel to engage with citizens, it also exposes them to the risks of spreading unverified information. “In a digital age, tweets carry as much weight as formal statements,” one analyst noted. “A single post can sway public opinion, but it can also damage reputations irreparably if not backed by evidence.”
For Mutodi, the apology represents not just an attempt to mend relations with Guvamatanga but also a signal of the need for more measured communication by public officials. His statement stressed that future concerns would be raised through the formal mechanisms of Parliament rather than on social media.
“I remain committed to contributing meaningfully to governance,” he concluded, “but I will ensure that this is done within the confines of responsible and evidence-based discourse.”
Whether the episode fades quickly or continues to haunt Mutodi politically remains to be seen. What is clear is that the clash highlighted both the importance of accountability in government and the dangers of making unsubstantiated claims in the public domain.
Source- Bulawayo24
