By Jacob Mutisi
Chivayo has long been viewed as operating close to the centre of power, with visible proximity to President Emmerson Mnangagwa. He has gifted cars, cash and other largesse to politicians, celebrities and power brokers. Many already believed he wielded outsized influence. This latest move suggests a shift from influence to outright capture.
Parliament’s core mandate is to scrutinise the Executive, probe corruption and hold power to account. MPs and Senators are expected to interrogate tenders, question dubious contracts and demand explanations for unexplained wealth. Yet those same lawmakers are now being offered money by a businessman whose own dealings have repeatedly drawn public scrutiny.
What happens when Parliament must investigate a contract linked to Chivayo? Will MPs interrogate ministers robustly if they have accepted his money? Or will the US$10,000 in their pockets temper their voice?
This is the real danger. It is not the money itself, but the erosion of institutional independence.
Zimbabwe already has a lawful mechanism for local development — the Constituency Development Fund. If resources are needed for clinics, roads or boreholes, they should be allocated transparently through the national budget. There is no legitimate basis for a private individual to assume the role of a parallel Treasury.
The timing compounds the problem. Framed as an Independence Day gesture, the offer is deeply ironic. Independence was meant to secure autonomy from control — not to place the legislature in the debt of a politically connected benefactor.
Serious questions arise. Where did the US$3.6 million come from? Was it taxed? What business interests does Chivayo currently have before the State? What contracts or concessions might be linked, directly or indirectly, to this “donation”? And why would any businessman disburse such sums to politicians without expectation of return?
If MPs and Senators accept the money, the damage will be lasting. Their credibility will be compromised. Every debate, vote and silence will be judged through the prism of that payment. Representation will give way to patronage.
This is no longer just about one businessman. It is a stress test for Zimbabwe’s institutions. If Parliament takes the money, it will validate the fear that governance is no longer anchored in democratic accountability, but in wealth, access and loyalty.
If that line is crossed, the US$3.6 million saga will rank among the darkest episodes in the country’s political history. Zimbabwe should not be here.
