President Emmerson Mnangagwa has accused his deputy, Constantino Chiwenga, of incitement and treason in response to a corruption dossier Chiwenga reportedly presented to the Zanu PF politburo, escalating the party’s internal power struggle.
Background & Stakes
Chiwenga is not merely a subordinate: as vice president and formerly commander of the military, he holds symbolic and organizational weight in Zimbabwean politics.
Mnangagwa is attempting to extend his influence and perhaps entrench his authority beyond 2028, via internal party mechanisms (e.g. a “2030 Agenda”) and constitutional or party constitutional amendments
The internal party system and state institutions (military, security, intelligence, judiciary) may already be factionalized.
The accusation of “incitement” and “treason” is extremely serious in Zimbabwe’s legal and political context: under the “Patriotic Bill,” for instance, criticism or statements against state interest are tightly policed
Thus this confrontation is not just a policy quarrel: it is a power struggle, potentially existential for one faction or the other.
SCENARIOS
- Expulsion, suspension, or sidelining of Chiwenga: Mnangagwa’s camp may push to strip Chiwenga of key party or state roles, citing treason, breach of party discipline, or constitutional violation. Chiwenga might be declared in breach of ZANU-PF rules or court-martialled (if military involvement is alleged).
- B. Deepening factionalization, open splits inside ZANU-PF: Supporters of Chiwenga could defect, align with rival factions, or form “reform” factions. Some elements of the party may openly resist Mnangagwa’s dominance, leading to parallel structures.
- Purges or realignments in the security sector: Mnangagwa may move quickly to replace military, intelligence, police, and security officials loyal to Chiwenga, or those deemed “ambiguous.” This risks provoking backlash or silent resistance within security ranks.
Prosecutions or legal action against Chiwenga (or his aides): The state may bring charges of treason, incitement, or other serious offenses. Even if cases fail, the legal drag will hamper Chiwenga’s capacity to mobilize.
- Disruption of governance, paralysis Because Chiwenga likely holds significant patronage networks, ministries or agencies aligned to him may slow or withhold cooperation, damaging service delivery or implementation.
- Heightened political tension, risk of social unrest : The public might perceive instability; opposition may exploit the discord; protests or spontaneous mobilization (especially in constituencies loyal to Chiwenga) could occur.
- Restructuring of ZANU-PF to strengthen presidential control The party constitution, internal rules, and conference structures may be altered to weaken deputy power, bind loyalty, and centralize authority around Mnangagwa or his successor proxies.
- Acceleration (or derailment) of succession planning: If Chiwenga is eliminated as a contender, other figures (either military or party stalwarts) may emerge as front-runners. Alternatively, Mnangagwa may engineer a successor scenario more favorable to his faction.
Erosion of regime legitimacy, increased opposition leverage: The public might view the regime as corrupt, fractious, or despotic. Opposition forces could exploit the split, presenting themselves as the stable alternative.
- diplomatic pressure or sanctions: The public might view the regime as corrupt, fractious, or despotic. Opposition forces could exploit the split, presenting themselves as the stable alternative.
Key Risk Variables & Conditions
- Loyalty in the security apparatus
If Chiwenga retains the loyalty of key military units, intelligence agencies, or police factions, then he may pose a significant threat. Conversely, if Mnangagwa successfully isolates him, Chiwenga’s options shrink. - Popular support and mobilization capacity
Can Chiwenga mobilize mass support, especially via war veterans, rural constituencies, or party bases? The more his claim to legitimacy resonates (e.g. championing anti-corruption, anti-capture rhetoric), the more leverage he may sustain. - Institutional safeguards / judiciary independence
If courts and legal institutions maintain some autonomy, Chiwenga may have legal recourse; if they are entirely co-opted, prosecutions will be one-sided. - Media, information, and narrative control
Whichever side more effectively controls state media, security of messaging, leaks, and censorship will have an advantage to shape public perception and rally elite or mass backing. - Regional / international response
Interventions or pressure (diplomatic, sanctions, mediation) by foreign governments or regional bodies (e.g. SADC, AU) may constrain extreme crackdowns or encourage negotiated settlement. - Economic conditions
If the economy is under stress (inflation, shortages, foreign exchange distress), the regime’s internal fragility is magnified. Economic hardship could catalyze public discontent, tipping the balance.
Precedent of “2017 coup”
Zimbabwe’s recent history includes a military intervention in 2017, when Chiwenga himself played a lead role. Any suggestion that Chiwenga might repeat or threaten another intervention is credible in Zimbabwe’s political imagination.
Likely Scenario Sketch & Strategic Outcomes
Based on the balance of power and past trends, a plausible (though not inevitable) scenario is as follows:
- Mnangagwa’s faction, already in control of key levers, will move swiftly to marginalize Chiwenga: pressuring the party’s central organs to expel or censure him, removing his access to security resources, and possibly initiating legal proceedings.
- Chiwenga’s faction will attempt to resist through media leaks, moral appeals to party legitimacy, backing from war veterans or loyal military elements, and potentially by threatening disruption (e.g. via protest or military alignment).
- If Chiwenga cannot muster sufficient institutional or force backing, he might be neutralized (silenced, removed from power, prosecuted).
- In the process, ZANU-PF will become more monolithic under Mnangagwa’s control; internal dissent will be more difficult. Party constitutional and procedural mechanisms may be retooled to concentrate power further at the top.
- However, this consolidation comes at a cost: legitimacy will suffer, the regime will appear more brittle, and the opposition might find new space to exploit the fractures.
- Over time, unless the regime successfully rebalances (e.g. by distributing patronage, containing dissent, delivering economic performance), the internal crisis may shift into a broader governance crisis or even prompt a regime collapse or negotiated transition.
Thus, the confrontation is a tipping point: either it leads to a more entrenched, controlled version of authoritarian rule under Mnangagwa, or it accelerates a dynamic of fragmentation that could weaken or dislodge him.
Possible (Probable) Consequences
Key Regional / international response
Interventions or pressure (diplomatic, sanctions, mediation) by foreign governments or regional bodies (e.g. SADC, AU) may constrain extreme crackdowns or encourage negotiated settlement.
- Economic conditions
If the economy is under stress (inflation, shortages, foreign exchange distress), the regime’s internal fragility is magnified. Economic hardship could catalyze public discontent, tipping the balance. - Precedent of “2017 coup”
Zimbabwe’s recent history includes a military intervention in 2017, when Chiwenga himself played a lead role. Any suggestion that Chiwenga might repeat or threaten another intervention is credible in Zimbabwe’s political imagination.
Likely Scenario Sketch & Strategic Outcomes
Based on the balance of power and past trends, a plausible (though not inevitable) scenario is as follows:
- Mnangagwa’s faction, already in control of key levers, will move swiftly to marginalize Chiwenga: pressuring the party’s central organs to expel or censure him, removing his access to security resources, and possibly initiating legal proceedings.
- Chiwenga’s faction will attempt to resist through media leaks, moral appeals to party legitimacy, backing from war veterans or loyal military elements, and potentially by threatening disruption (e.g. via protest or military alignment).
- If Chiwenga cannot muster sufficient institutional or force backing, he might be neutralized (silenced, removed from power, prosecuted).
- In the process, ZANU-PF will become more monolithic under Mnangagwa’s control; internal dissent will be more difficult. Party constitutional and procedural mechanisms may be retooled to concentrate power further at the top.
- However, this consolidation comes at a cost: legitimacy will suffer, the regime will appear more brittle, and the opposition might find new space to exploit the fractures.
- Over time, unless the regime successfully rebalances (e.g. by distributing patronage, containing dissent, delivering economic performance), the internal crisis may shift into a broader governance crisis or even prompt a regime collapse or negotiated transition.
Thus, the confrontation is a tipping point: either it leads to a more entrenched, controlled version of authoritarian rule under Mnangagwa, or it accelerates a dynamic of fragmentation that could weaken or dislodge him.
The accusation by President Mnangagwa that Vice President Chiwenga has committed incitement and treason is not a mere rhetorical flourish: it signals that the internal stakes within ZANU-PF are existential.
The confrontation likely accelerates a process of internal cleansing and consolidation by Mnangagwa’s faction, while testing whether Chiwenga has enough institutional and force backing to resist or survive. For Zimbabwe, the immediate risks are instability, governance paralysis, and a harder turn toward authoritarian control. But if the regime misplays its hand, the rupture might open space for broader political realignment.
Source: Robert Lansing Institute
The post A Coup Within the Party: The Mnangagwa–Chiwenga Rift and the Future of Zimbabwe’s Power Structure first appeared on The Zimbabwe Mail.