By Samuel Jambaya
3rd November 2026
Zimbabwe attained independence in 1980 after a painful and
bloody struggle against colonial oppression, with thousands of lives sacrificed
in the hope that future generations would enjoy freedom, dignity, equality and
justice. The people believed that independence would mark the end of
oppression, that no citizen would again be forced to live in fear of those
exercising political power, and that the nation’s wealth would finally serve
its own people. Yet, decades later, a fundamental question remains: what is the
meaning of independence when citizens are afraid to speak, when political
disagreement can expose a person to intimidation and violence, when public
institutions appear incapable of protecting ordinary people, and when the population that fought for liberation continues to struggle for the most
necessities of life? ZANU-PF has governed Zimbabwe since independence, but the
passage of time in power must never be confused with the achievement of
freedom. A liberation movement does not acquire permanent ownership of a nation
simply because it participated in the struggle for independence. Zimbabwe
belongs to its citizens, not to a political party, a ruling elite or
individuals who believe that questioning their leadership is an act of treason.
True independence means that the people possess the freedom to choose their
leaders, criticise their government, demand accountability and live without
fear of political retaliation. When these freedoms are threatened, the promise
of liberation remains incomplete.
The most disturbing feature of Zimbabwe’s political
environment is the fear surrounding the exercise of fundamental human rights.
Freedom of expression, peaceful assembly and political participation are not
privileges granted by a ruling party; they are fundamental rights that
governments are obliged to respect and protect. Nevertheless, reports by
Amnesty International have repeatedly documented arbitrary arrests, harassment
of perceived opponents, intimidation of activists and restrictions on peaceful
dissent in Zimbabwe. In its report on the country’s human rights situation in
2025, Amnesty International documented arrests of opposition supporters and
activists, including the arrest of journalist Blessed Mhlanga in February 2025
and the detention of journalists covering demonstrations on 31 March 2025. The
organisation also reported that more than 90 activists opposing proposed
constitutional changes were arrested on 31 March 2025. These are not imaginary
political concerns; they are documented incidents that demand public scrutiny
and accountability. Amnesty International, Zimbabwe 2025 report. When citizens
come to believe that their safety depends on political silence, democracy is
reduced to a performance in which the population is permitted to vote but
discouraged from questioning those who govern.
The disappearance of journalist and pro-democracy activist
Itai Dzamara remains one of the most painful examples of the consequences of
political activism in Zimbabwe. On 9 March 2015, five men abducted Dzamara from
a barber shop in Harare’s Glen View suburb. He had previously called for
political change and criticised the government. Despite a High Court order
directing the authorities to search for him and report on their progress, his
whereabouts remained unknown ten years later. In March 2025, Amnesty International
renewed its demand for an independent investigation into his disappearance,
criticising the authorities’ failure to establish what happened to him. Amnesty
International, 7 March 2025. The question Zimbabweans must ask is simple: how
can citizens have confidence in the justice system when someone can disappear
after engaging in political activism, and the truth remains elusive for a
decade? A government cannot credibly claim to protect its citizens while such
cases remain unresolved. Justice delayed for a decade is not merely a legal
failure; it is a continuing source of suffering for families and a warning to
others who may wish to speak out.
The concerns surrounding Kelvin Bhonzo’s death have added
another painful dimension to this crisis. According to reporting by CITE, the
Zimbabwe Peace Project condemned his death in July 2026 after he reportedly
succumbed to injuries sustained in an alleged politically motivated assault in
Chitungwiza. The organisation said the assault had been documented in its June
2026 human rights monitoring report and that suspected ZANU-PF supporters had
allegedly attacked him because of his association with opposition to
Constitutional Amendment Bill No. 3, subsequently enacted as Constitutional
Amendment Act No. 3. CITE, 28 July 2026. These allegations must be investigated
independently, and those responsible must be brought to justice if the evidence
establishes their guilt. However, the wider political question cannot be
ignored: why should anyone face the possibility of violence for opposing a
constitutional amendment? Why should a citizen’s political opinion become a
threat to personal safety? A constitution should protect the people from the
abuse of power, not become a battleground where the interests of political
officeholders take precedence over citizens’ rights. The death of any
individual in circumstances allegedly connected to political disagreement deserves
a transparent investigation, not silence, intimidation or the dismissal of
public concern. No political party has the right to determine whose life
matters and whose suffering can be ignored.
The controversy surrounding Constitutional Amendment No. 3
also raises serious questions about the future of democratic accountability in
Zimbabwe. In October 2025, Amnesty International reported that ZANU-PF had
adopted a proposal to amend the Constitution to extend President Emmerson
Mnangagwa’s tenure by two years, from its scheduled end in 2028 to 2030.
Opposition figures challenged the proposal, while human rights concerns grew
over the treatment of those resisting it. Amnesty International subsequently
reported attacks on constitutional lawyer Professor Lovemore Madhuku and other
political activists on 1 March 2026. According to the organisation, armed men
attacked participants at a meeting in Harare while uniformed police officers
were present. Amnesty called for an independent investigation and an end to the
crackdown on peaceful dissent. Amnesty International, 2 March 2026. These
events raise a fundamental democratic concern: a constitution should not be
manipulated to protect individuals' political futures at the expense of the
people’s right to periodic, meaningful elections. Political leaders are
temporary custodians of public office, not permanent owners of the state. The
legitimacy of any constitutional change depends not merely on whether it can be
passed through formal procedures, but also on whether citizens can freely
debate it, oppose it and participate in the process without intimidation. A
government that claims to represent the people must be prepared to listen to
them, even when their demands threaten the comfort or ambitions of those in
power.
The allegations surrounding the Gold Mafia investigations
provide another troubling example of the questions surrounding the management
of Zimbabwe’s national wealth. In March and April 2023, Al Jazeera published an
investigative series examining alleged gold smuggling and money laundering
involving individuals connected to Zimbabwe’s gold trade, including prominent
figures and a diplomat serving as ambassador-at-large. The investigation
featured undercover recordings in which individuals discussed arrangements to
move gold and launder money. The Zimbabwean government subsequently announced
that it would investigate the allegations, stating that anyone found to have
committed criminal acts would face the law. The individuals and entities
featured in the investigation did not all accept the allegations, and the
claims must be distinguished from criminal findings established by a court.
Nevertheless, the investigation raised legitimate questions
about the integrity of institutions responsible for regulating the gold trade
and protecting public revenue. Al Jazeera, 5 April 2023. Zimbabwe is rich in
mineral resources, yet this natural wealth has not translated into reliable
public services and economic security for millions of citizens. Gold should
help finance hospitals, schools, roads, employment and national development. It
should not become a source of enrichment for a privileged few while ordinary
families struggle to afford food, medication and transport. The issue is not
whether Zimbabwe should benefit from its gold; it is whether Zimbabweans are
receiving the benefits of their own resources. Every unresolved allegation
involving public officials, politically connected individuals or state-linked
institutions must be examined through independent investigations, transparent
financial records and fair legal proceedings. National wealth belongs to the
nation, and citizens have every right to demand an explanation when they
believe it is being lost through corruption or illicit activity.
Perhaps nowhere is the failure of public accountability felt
more directly than in the healthcare system. For many ordinary Zimbabweans,
going to a public hospital no longer brings the reassurance that medical care
is available when life is at risk. Instead, it can bring fear, uncertainty and
the terrifying possibility that a treatable condition may become fatal because
essential medicines, equipment, trained personnel or emergency services are
unavailable. For many desperate families, going to the hospital feels like
being handed a death sentence rather than being given a chance to live. I use
this expression to describe the fear and despair created by a healthcare system
in which patients may arrive seeking treatment only to encounter shortages,
delays and inadequate facilities. No patient should have to wonder whether
entering a hospital will be the beginning of recovery or the start of a
tragedy. A hospital should be a place where life is protected, pain is
relieved, and families are given hope. It must never become an institution
where poverty determines whether someone receives treatment in time.
This concern is supported by evidence of serious healthcare
challenges. In March 2025, the news agency EFE reported that Zimbabwe’s health
minister had announced at least 300 newborn deaths and 54 maternal deaths since
January amid a crisis involving shortages of essential medical equipment,
life-saving medication and experienced healthcare professionals. The reported
figures included 111 neonatal deaths and 19 maternal deaths in Harare. EFE, 6
March 2025. UNICEF’s 2024 annual report also identified inadequate or obsolete
equipment, medicine stockouts, dwindling financing and an insufficient health
workforce as continuing challenges to healthcare delivery in Zimbabwe. UNICEF
Zimbabwe, 2024 Annual Report. These findings demonstrate that the crisis is not
simply a matter of political rhetoric. They point to structural problems
affecting patients, families and medical professionals. When essential
equipment is unavailable, medical supplies run out, and hospitals cannot
consistently provide the services people need, the consequences can be
devastating. My own family has experienced the burden of this situation. When
my younger sister broke her arm, we had to obtain certain medication ourselves
to facilitate her treatment. That experience showed me how distressing it is
for a family to seek medical help and then discover that obtaining the
necessary supplies becomes an additional responsibility. A patient’s access to
treatment should not depend on whether their family has enough money to
purchase what a public hospital cannot provide.
The situation becomes even more troubling when reports
describe medical procedures conducted under inadequate lighting, including the
alleged use of candles or mobile phone torches, or patients being required to
purchase supplies before treatment can proceed. Such individual incidents
should be documented and investigated, but the principle is beyond dispute:
safe surgery requires appropriate equipment, lighting, sterilisation, medicines
and trained professionals. Patients should not be exposed to avoidable risks
due to public facilities lacking the resources to operate safely. Healthcare
workers also deserve fair pay, adequate supplies and working conditions that
allow them to perform their duties professionally. Underpaid nurses and
doctors, shortages of experienced personnel and deteriorating facilities are
symptoms of a system that requires urgent reform. It is unjust to expect
medical professionals to preserve lives while denying them the resources they
need to do their jobs. Equally, ordinary citizens should not bear the
consequences of failures in public administration and financing. The government
must explain how healthcare budgets are allocated, how medical supplies are
procured and distributed, and what concrete steps are being taken to restore
the capacity of public hospitals. The right to life means little in practice if
a citizen cannot obtain timely, affordable and safe medical treatment.
It is especially difficult for ordinary Zimbabweans to
understand these hardships when individuals with considerable financial
resources can seek treatment abroad while the majority struggle to obtain care
at home. The point is not that anyone should be denied medical treatment
outside Zimbabwe. Every person has the right to seek appropriate care. The real
question is why the national healthcare system is unable to offer ordinary
citizens the same confidence in accessing essential treatment. If public hospitals
are sufficiently reliable for everyone, why do so many families fear using
them? If the nation’s resources are being managed in the interests of the
people, why must patients search for medicines, pay for supplies or travel long
distances for services that should be accessible locally? These questions
demand answers rooted in budgets, procurement records, staffing figures and
measurable improvements, not political speeches. The government must be judged
not by the promises it makes but by the lives it protects.
The same principle applies to emergency services. An
ambulance is not a luxury; it can be the difference between life and death.
When a patient suffers a medical emergency, there may be no time for a family
to search for transport, negotiate costs or appeal to politically connected
individuals for assistance. Every community requires dependable emergency
response systems, functioning ambulances, trained personnel and accessible
medical facilities. Where ambulances are unavailable because of shortages or
resource constraints, the causes must be investigated and addressed. If public
funds have been diverted or mismanaged, the evidence must be established, and
those responsible held accountable through due process. Citizens should never
have to question whether their survival depends on their political affiliation,
financial status or connections to the ruling party. Public services exist to
serve the public. Their purpose is defeated when access to essential assistance
becomes a privilege rather than a basic component of citizenship.
Zimbabwe’s political and economic problems are also
reflected in the treatment of citizens forced to leave the country in search of
safety or economic opportunity. Zimbabweans living in South Africa and
elsewhere have faced difficult circumstances, including xenophobic hostility,
economic insecurity and, in some cases, forced or assisted returns. Whenever
citizens return home under distressing circumstances, the government has a
responsibility to ensure that they receive humane treatment, emergency assistance
and support with reintegration. Reports that returnees have experienced
shortages of food, shelter or transportation deserve serious scrutiny. People
who have already endured hardship should not be abandoned upon reaching their
own country. Their circumstances should prompt questions about employment,
economic opportunity, public assistance and the conditions that forced so many
people to seek livelihoods beyond Zimbabwe’s borders in the first place. A
government cannot celebrate national sovereignty while failing to address the
circumstances that leave its citizens struggling to survive abroad. Nor should
the suffering of returning citizens be treated as less important than political
ceremonies, luxury travel or the interests of those with access to public
resources. Every Zimbabwean deserves dignity, regardless of where they have
lived or the circumstances under which they return.
The concerns about political repression extend beyond
Zimbabwe’s borders, particularly among activists in the diaspora who continue
to campaign for democratic reform. Zimbabweans abroad retain the right to
express their political opinions, organise peaceful demonstrations and call for
accountability. Their geographical location should not deprive them of their
dignity or legitimate democratic freedoms. Concerns about intimidation,
surveillance and possible retaliation against activists who criticise the government
must be taken seriously and investigated where credible evidence exists. The
law commonly referred to as the Patriot Act has also attracted criticism from
those who fear that broad restrictions on engagement with foreign governments
could be used to discourage dissent. Such concerns must be assessed in light of
the law’s actual provisions and their implementation. Still, the underlying
democratic principle is clear: patriotism cannot be reduced to unquestioning
loyalty to a political party. A citizen who exposes corruption, condemns
violence or campaigns for constitutional accountability is not automatically an
enemy of the nation. Indeed, peaceful criticism can be an expression of
profound commitment to the country’s future. Zimbabwe needs citizens who are
free to ask difficult questions, journalists who can investigate wrongdoing,
civil society organisations that can monitor public institutions, and a
diaspora that can contribute ideas and resources without fear. A government
confident in its legitimacy should welcome peaceful scrutiny rather than treat
criticism as a threat to its survival.
The central tragedy of Zimbabwe is that the people who
fought for political liberation should not have to fight another
generation-long battle for the freedoms that independence was supposed to
secure. Political independence without effective accountability can leave
citizens feeling powerless. Elections without a safe environment for political
participation cannot fully satisfy the promise of democracy. Natural resources
without transparent management cannot guarantee national prosperity. Hospitals
without adequate equipment cannot provide the security that the right to health
demands. And a justice system that fails to resolve serious allegations of
political violence cannot reassure citizens that the law protects them equally.
These are not isolated questions. They are interconnected tests of whether the
state is fulfilling its responsibilities to the people.
I would rather face a life sentence for standing by my
convictions than live in constant fear of being tortured, abducted or killed
for expressing my political views. This is not because imprisonment is
something to celebrate, nor because I wish harm upon anyone. It is because a
life without freedom, dignity and the ability to speak the truth is one in
which fear has been allowed to overpower citizenship. No Zimbabwean should be
forced to make such a choice. No parent should fear that a child will be attacked
for holding a political opinion. No activist should have to consider
disappearance or violence as a possible consequence of peaceful opposition. No
journalist should be intimidated for reporting on matters of public interest.
No patient should fear that entering a hospital is equivalent to receiving a
death sentence. No family should be left without answers when a loved one dies
in circumstances that raise legitimate questions. And no individual or
political organisation should be permitted to place itself above the law.
I therefore call for independent investigations into
reported cases of political violence, including Kelvin Bhonzo’s death;
meaningful accountability for those responsible for abuses established through
credible evidence; the protection of journalists, activists and peaceful
protesters; transparent investigations into allegations arising from the Gold
Mafia exposé; stronger judicial independence; and urgent, measurable investment
in healthcare, emergency services and essential public infrastructure. Zimbabwe
also needs transparent constitutional processes, credible democratic
competition and public institutions that serve every citizen without
discrimination. These demands are not an attack on Zimbabwe. They are a call
for the country to fulfil the promises upon which its independence was built.
Criticising a government's failures is not the same as hating one’s country. In
many circumstances, it is precisely because people love their country that they
refuse to remain silent while its institutions struggle and its citizens
suffer.
The bloodshed during the liberation struggle must not be
used to justify permanent political entitlement. The sacrifices of those who
fought for independence should be honoured by protecting the freedoms for which
they struggled, not by demanding that future generations accept fear and
silence in their name. No political party is greater than the nation, no leader
is greater than the Constitution, and no officeholder is entitled to treat
public resources as personal property. Zimbabwe’s future must be determined by
its people through peaceful, free and credible democratic processes. Its
hospitals must preserve life, its courts must deliver justice, its resources
must serve the public, and its citizens must be free to speak without fear.
The question that remains is this: when will Zimbabwe
experience its second independence? Not independence from another nation, but
freedom from fear, political intimidation, corruption, impunity and the denial
of fundamental human rights. Independence means that a child can enter a
hospital and expect treatment, a citizen can criticise the president without
fear of retaliation, an activist can organise a peaceful demonstration without
being attacked, and a family can demand justice without being ignored. It means
that the wealth beneath Zimbabwean soil is reflected in the wellbeing of the
people who live upon it, and that political leadership is a public
responsibility rather than a permanent entitlement. Until Zimbabweans can enjoy
these freedoms in practice, the promise of 1980 remains unfinished. Zimbabwe
does not need another liberation struggle fought in blood; it needs a
democratic renewal built on truth, accountability, justice and the protection
of human life. The people must never again be forced to choose between their
political convictions and their right to live. The struggle for Zimbabwe’s
second independence must continue until freedom belongs to every Zimbabwean,
not merely to those who hold power.
About
the author: -
Samuel Jambaya is a Zimbabwean human rights activist based in the United
Kingdom. He is a member of the UK Chapter of Restoration of Human Rights (ROHR)
Zimbabwe and is also active with the Constitution Defenders Forum (CDF). He can
be contacted via email at jomueljambaya@gmail.com.
