Zanu-PF spokesperson Christopher Mutsvangwa has ignited political controversy with remarks suggesting the late former President Robert Mugabe was deposed for allegedly attempting to establish a family dynasty — a claim critics say now reflects more on the current administration than its predecessor.
Speaking at a press conference last Tuesday, Mutsvangwa claimed Mugabe had transformed the presidency into “a courthouse of intrigue” aimed at consolidating power within his family. “That’s the antithesis of the revolution,” he said, justifying the 2017 coup as a response to Mugabe “going haywire.”
But analysts and observers have pounced on the remarks, accusing Mutsvangwa of hypocrisy and political revisionism. Rather than exposing Mugabe’s failings, they argue, his words have inadvertently highlighted similar — if not worse — dynastic tendencies under President Emmerson Mnangagwa.
A Case of the Pot Calling the Kettle Black?
Political analyst Reuben Mbofana rejected Mutsvangwa’s claims outright, saying there was no formal attempt by Mugabe to install his wife Grace or any of his children as successors.
“There was not a point at all whereby Mugabe anointed Grace to be his successor. It was an assumption. In fact, Mugabe was rumoured to prefer Sydney Sekeramayi,” Mbofana said.
He added that Mugabe’s children were far removed from the corridors of power: “They were busy just getting drunk and buying expensive whiskeys in South Africa and Zimbabwe.”
In contrast, Mbofana said, Mnangagwa has embedded his family deep into the structures of government. “His son David is deputy finance minister, his nephew Tongai is deputy minister of tourism, and his wife Auxillia now sits in the politburo. Another son, Sean, is a major in the army,” he noted, describing the administration as a “clansman government.”
Old Excuses, New Realities
Former University of Zimbabwe political science lecturer Professor Eldred Masunungure also weighed in, dismissing Mutsvangwa’s claims as “distorted to drive a political agenda.”
“There is no qualitative difference between Mugabe and Mnangagwa in terms of dynastic ambition,” he said, cautioning against selective historical interpretation.
Political analyst Jealousy Mawarire went further, accusing Mutsvangwa of benefiting from the same system he now criticises.
“Mutsvangwa was never concerned about dynasties or state capture — he was concerned about his personal benefits. Mugabe never had his children in Cabinet or managing government affairs. Mnangagwa, on the other hand, has his entire family orbiting around the presidency,” he said.
Constitutionalism in Question
While Mutsvangwa portrayed Mnangagwa as a constitutionalist leader, Mawarire dismissed this characterisation as fiction. “Mnangagwa has violated both the national and Zanu-PF constitutions,” he claimed, highlighting growing concerns about democratic backsliding and intra-party manipulation.
Now in his eighth year of power, Mnangagwa — who turns 83 later this year — has stated his intention to retire in 2028, at the end of his current term. However, there is growing speculation that he may be pressured by loyalists to extend his tenure to 2030, potentially opening another chapter in Zimbabwe’s succession debate.
As Mutsvangwa’s comments continue to provoke scrutiny, analysts suggest he may have unwittingly reignited uncomfortable questions about the very culture of governance and succession within Zanu-PF — a party still wrestling with the ghosts of its past and the uncertainties of its future.
