ZIMBABWE’S UNFINISHED LIBERATION: A NATION HELD HOSTAGE BY FEAR, CORRUPTION AND POLITICAL REPRESSION

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.