Tendai Ruben Mbofana
The political theater currently unfolding in Zimbabwe, sparked by Vice President Constantino Chiwenga’s “Hezekiah sermon,” has once again exposed the hollow nature of democratic discourse within our ruling establishment.
If you value my social justice advocacy and writing, please consider a financial contribution to keep it going. Contact me on WhatsApp: +263 715 667 700 or Email: mbofana.tendairuben73@gmail.com
While the Vice President chose the pulpit of a Roman Catholic Church in Murewa to deliver a coded message about the perils of “extra years,” the reaction from certain quarters was as predictable as it was hysterical.
Leading the charge of the “excitable” is Temba Mliswa, whose immediate demand for the Vice President’s resignation is not only premature but fundamentally ignores the constitutional and historical realities of Zimbabwean politics.
To suggest that a senior leader must walk away simply because he expresses a view—however metaphorical—that contradicts a specific factional agenda is a dangerous precedent that reeks of political intolerance.
Mliswa’s assertion that Chiwenga has become a “liability” who should resign is a simplistic solution to a complex ideological struggle.
Under the Constitution of Zimbabwe, every citizen, including the Vice President, enjoys the right to freedom of expression and freedom of religion.
If Chiwenga chooses to deliver a sermon, the interpretation of that sermon is a matter of public debate, but the act itself is a protected right.
To demand a resignation based on a biblical analogy is an overreach.
Furthermore, if the Vice President had indeed breached any internal code of conduct, the logical and “normal” procedure would be for the presidency to institute its own disciplinary measures.
By bypassing this and shouting for a resignation from the sidelines, Mliswa appears more interested in performing for a particular gallery than in upholding the principles of organizational discipline.
At the heart of this friction is the contentious debate over Constitutional Amendment (No. 3) Bill, or CAB3, and the “ED2030” campaign.
If Chiwenga was indeed using the story of King Hezekiah to signal his opposition to the extension of the presidential term, is that not within his rights?
In any healthy democracy, there must be room for dissent, especially when the core tenets of the country’s supreme law are at stake.
If a leader feels the country is heading in a direction that betrays its founding ideals or the national interest, speaking out is not an act of rebellion; it is an act of duty.
The notion that one must simply leave the room the moment they disagree with the majority is a coward’s exit.
History is not made by those who resign and disappear; it is made by those who stand firm and fight from within to reclaim the soul of their nation.
We have seen this script before.
One only needs to look back to 2017 and the events that led to “Operation Restore Legacy.”
When the G40 faction, led by Grace Mugabe, began to dismantle the ruling ZANU-PF party structures and target liberation war icons, the likes of Emmerson Mnangagwa did not simply resign and retire to a quiet life of farming.
Even when Mnangagwa was expelled and forced into temporary exile, the guiding philosophy was that the party had been hijacked and needed to be “restored” from within.
It mattered little that nine out of ten party provinces had, at that time, already voted for his ouster.
They believed that the country and party did not belong to a single family or a small clique of opportunists.
If that logic held true in 2017, why should it be different in 2026?
If Chiwenga views the current trajectory—potentially fueled by “Zvigananda” and shady tenderpreneurs who have used their wealth to capture both state and party structures—as a betrayal of the struggle, he has every right to stay put and fight.
The Vice President is not a temporary guest in Zimbabwe.
This is a man who joined the struggle as a teenager, dedicated his entire adult life to the liberation of this country, and was at the very forefront of the transition that brought the current administration into power.
To expect a person with such a deep-rooted history to hand over the keys and walk away because of a disagreement over term limits is absurd.
If the nation is being led astray by a few wealthy elites who prioritize their tenders over the principles of social justice and constitutionalism, the noble path is to remain and challenge that rot.
Resigning would be a gift to those who wish to see the country transformed into a private members’ club for the highest bidder.
Internal friction is the sign of a living organization, while total silence is often the sign of a graveyard.
Mliswa’s “excitable” demands ignore the fact that the Vice President’s rights do not vanish because he holds a high office.
If we are to claim that we are a constitutional democracy, we must respect the right of leaders to hold differing views on the direction of the nation.
The “Hezekiah sermon” may have ruffled feathers, but ruffling feathers is often the first step toward correcting a wrong turn.
Chiwenga’s history, his rights, and his stake in the liberation movement demand that he be heard, not hushed.
The focus should not be on his resignation, but on whether the concerns he indirectly raised have merit.
In the end, the strength of a leader is measured by their willingness to stand their ground when the wind blows in an ugly direction, rather than folding their tent and slipping into the night.
- Tendai Ruben Mbofana is a social justice advocate and writer. To directly receive his articles please join his WhatsApp Channel on: https://whatsapp.com/channel/0029VaqprWCIyPtRnKpkHe08