Chinamasa & ED play Chiwenga by “Hiding” Item 7.1.7 of Politburo Minutes On 30 July 2025?

By Brighton Mutebuka

 

In choosing to repost the explosive post again, ZANU PF Secretary for Legal Affairs Patrick Chinamasa & those behind him have recognised the political significance of the “concession” they had voluntarily made on the political chessboard ahead of the now eagerly awaited meeting, hence why they have now made another U-turn, which is symptomatic of poor planning.

 

Legal & Political points to note ahead of that meeting are: a. According to
@ChinamasaPA’s contentious post, on 30 July 2025, Chiwenga chaired the 385th Ordinary Session of the Politburo as ZANU PF’s Dep Sec & VP.

 

b. That session reportedly confirmed the Minutes of the 384th Meeting which were prepared by Obert Mpofu in his capacity as the Sec Gen.

 

c. The meeting that Chiwenga chaired reportedly confirmed the previous meeting’s minutes – but with minor amendments.

 

d. “Hidden” (in plain sight), in the text of those minutes was Item 7.1.7, which allegedly appears on page 22 and refers to the co-option of Tagwirei by Harare Province into the Central Committee having already been completed.

 

e. Another “hidden” (again in plain sight) provision is Item 7.1.6, which is said to feature on the same page, which was noted & confirmed without amendment, which refers to a “Circular on Co-Options,” drafted by Chinamasa, containing guidelines to be relied upon in the process dated 30 June 2025.

 

f. This circular apparently supersedes the one dated 5 June 2025 signed by Mpofu, which Chinamasa claims sought to address the same issue.

 

Matters In Dispute 1. It is clear that ZANU PF factions are disputing which circular takes legal effect and which one is void & of no consequence.

 

1. It is unclear whether or not Chinamasa has got the power under the ZANU PF Constitution to not only generate another circular “mero motu” (on his own accord) (but also sign it himself) which supersedes the one signed by Mpofu.

 

1. What were the reasons for departing from the previous circular? Who raised them & for what purpose? And is such a process / procedure lawful under the ZANU PF Constitution?

 

1. If Chinamasa’s circular is somehow invalidated, does that necessarily invalidate Tagwirei’s confirmation per Item 7.1.7 above?

 

1. Since the meeting Chiwenga chaired took place on 30 July 2025, a month after the Chinamasa’s circular had been issued on 30 June 2025 and was “noted and confirmed” without amendments, it would appear that it could be argued that he had “notice” of the provision but failed to challenge it on the day, leaving it to sail through seamlessly.

 

Political Analysis

 

Was Chiwenga played by ED’s faction by being made to preside over a meeting where a provision acting as a potential death knell to his presidential ambitions was being smuggled through right under his nose?

 

Did Chiwenga’s faction drop the ball by focusing on the wrong provision by citing the one that required Tagwirei to be barred from the meeting on the day as opposed to focusing on the actual process that had taken place at the provincial level? In the end, does it even matter?

 

Conclusion

The proposition that ED & his faction sought to play Chiwenga by waylaying him into presenting the politically significant meeting on 30 July 2025 is persuasive.

 

That being said, that is not the end of the matter. The key significant development is that we are where we were in the lead up to November 2017.

 

ED’s faction appear to have out thought & out manoeuvred Chiwenga’s faction in this instance but that is not what will ultimately deliver power & victory to the triumphant party.

 

There is no amount of political intrigue & manoeuvres capable of sanitising Tagwirei’s huge deficit in terms of popular grassroots support & overarching ties in the military in particular & securocracy in general.

 

The more ED backs Tagwirei, the more he appears to be bleeding support in ZANU PF & the securocracy, rendering the path to power retention tenuous / precarious.

 

When the end eventually arrives, it is likely to be swift & dramatic – and have very little to do with legal strictures at state or party level!

 

*Brighton Mutebuka is a renowned Zimbabwean lawyer and political commentator based in the UK