In a dramatic turn within Zimbabwe’s ruling Zanu-PF, the party’s internal power struggles spilled into the open this week after spokesperson Chris Mutsvangwa mounted an energetic defence of a group of wealthy businessmen Vice-President Constantino Chiwenga recently accused of corruption.
The dispute has brought to the fore the deep factionalism simmering inside the ruling party, pitting Chiwenga’s calls for accountability against Mutsvangwa’s insistence that the businessmen—derisively labelled “Zvigananda” or nouveau riche tenderpreneurs—are legitimate actors in Zimbabwe’s economic landscape.
During last week’s explosive politburo meeting, Chiwenga directly named prominent figures such as fuel tycoon Kudakwashe Tagwirei, flamboyant businessman Wicknell Chivayo, and gold dealer Pedzisayi “Scott” Sakupwanya. He accused them of enriching themselves through state resources, undermining the economy, and dragging Zanu-PF’s reputation through the mud. His blunt remarks went further than usual, with the vice-president reportedly suggesting that the individuals should be arrested to demonstrate the government’s seriousness in tackling corruption.
However, at a press briefing in Harare yesterday, Mutsvangwa pushed back forcefully. In remarks that appeared to target Chiwenga’s criticism, he insisted that the businessmen were being unfairly demonised by detractors intent on sowing discord within the party.
“There are persistent efforts from detractors who are throwing cobwebs for us to witch-hunt ourselves,” Mutsvangwa declared. “They want to push an agenda that only a colonial economy can function. We have shown that we can defy that false narrative. The world has changed—now you get capital in São Paulo, Riyadh or Mumbai because of the emergence of new capital markets.”
Mutsvangwa Hits Back at Chiwenga Over Corruption Claims
Mutsvangwa sought to cast the young and wealthy entrepreneurs not as looters, but as beneficiaries of a changing global financial system who had successfully tapped into opportunities beyond Zimbabwe’s borders. He further credited President Emmerson Mnangagwa for reforms in the gold sector, arguing that his leadership had curbed smuggling and stimulated production.
“President Mnangagwa killed the smuggling of gold. Zimbabwe is producing 51 tonnes of gold per annum,” Mutsvangwa said. “Some of the young people who have made money, such as Scott Sakupwanya, are playing a big role in empowering others who are mining gold to get a fair price after production.”
His spirited defence was notable, not least because it marked a shift from his earlier position. In the past, Mutsvangwa had been sharply critical of figures such as Tagwirei, whom he once accused of leveraging his Zanu-PF connections to accumulate vast wealth and seek political influence within the ruling party. His latest remarks suggest a realignment, one that positions him closer to Mnangagwa’s camp, which has benefited significantly from the patronage and financial muscle of the so-called “tenderpreneurs.”
Chiwenga’s intervention, meanwhile, signals an attempt to assert authority in a party long dominated by factional rivalries. His fiery statements suggest he is positioning himself as a champion of anti-corruption and economic accountability, contrasting himself with colleagues who appear more tolerant of business interests entwined with politics.
Analysts note that the public nature of the dispute between Chiwenga and Mutsvangwa highlights the fragile balance within Zanu-PF. With Mnangagwa increasingly leaning on wealthy benefactors to fund party activities and maintain patronage networks, Chiwenga’s criticisms threaten to disrupt an arrangement that has kept the party financially buoyant. At the same time, Mutsvangwa’s defence underscores the reality that many within Zanu-PF are unwilling to sever ties with financiers whose resources remain vital to the party’s survival.
The rift has sparked intense debate among political observers and ordinary Zimbabweans alike. Critics of the “Zvigananda” argue that their rapid rise reflects deep-seated corruption, with state tenders, preferential access to resources, and opaque government deals at the heart of their wealth. Supporters, however, maintain that figures like Sakupwanya have provided opportunities for small-scale miners and infused much-needed liquidity into the economy.
The spat also revives longstanding questions about Mnangagwa and Chiwenga’s uneasy partnership. Though both men played central roles in the 2017 ouster of former president Robert Mugabe, their relationship has been marked by suspicion and jockeying for influence. The current confrontation could be an early sign of escalating tensions as the party looks ahead to future leadership contests.
For now, Mutsvangwa’s remarks have set the stage for a high-stakes confrontation over the role of money and business interests in Zanu-PF politics. While Chiwenga frames his argument as a moral crusade against corruption, Mutsvangwa portrays it as a distraction from the party’s efforts to engage with emerging global markets and empower a new class of entrepreneurs.
What remains unclear is how Mnangagwa himself will navigate this widening rift. By aligning with business-aligned benefactors, he risks alienating his deputy and fuelling perceptions of cronyism. By cracking down on the “Zvigananda,” he would risk cutting off vital financial support for the party.
As the battle lines harden, one thing is certain: the dispute between Chiwenga and Mutsvangwa is more than just a clash of personalities. It reflects a deeper contest over Zanu-PF’s future, its relationship with business elites, and the competing visions of how Zimbabwe’s economy should be managed in the years ahead.
Source- Bulawayo24
