Takemore Chigwengwendere

@EmmanuelGumbo_ Ur narrative is a tired one try something else

Last year on 13 December 2025 he had this to say(video attached), 6 months down the line, nothing has materialized. This “Chapwati” only surfaces when certain genuine democrats are on to something against the regime. Clearly there is a strategy and role playing to this. I have said it before, the plan is to mobilize unsuspecting, gullible citizens and pacify them. This has been the case since 2018.

@daddyhope @PacheduZW U are trying baba but ur narrative to hate is now a tired one itayi imika musiyeyi akadero chamisa

Former Zimbabwean opposition leader Nelson Chamisa has come out in the open and made it absolutely clear that he would not support another military coup in Zimbabwe. By implication, he would not support any military coup against President Emmerson Mnangagwa. In a tweet, Chamisa said he would not be made to “write Paper 2” again, a euphemism widely understood to mean that he would not repeat the role the opposition played during the events of November 2017, when the military intervened and removed former President Robert Mugabe from power.

@daddyhope Murikumbotiiko vakuru

For all the political mistakes and terrible miscommunications that he has made, I do not think Nelson Chamisa would be so foolish as to go into co-option with ZANUPF after Constitutional Amendment Bill No. 3. That would be the ultimate act of political surrender and betrayal, and I do not believe for a minute that he would take such a path. Anything that emerges from Constitutional Amendment Bill No. 3 will, as far as the genuine opposition is concerned, remain highly contestable. For a former opposition leader who spent years criticising ZANUPF and positioning himself as an alternative to then walk into a government created or sustained through a process he and his supporters fundamentally opposed would destroy his political credibility overnight. There is also a practical reality that many people overlook. A transitional authority or government is not built around one individual. It requires political parties, institutions, organised constituencies, and broad national consensus. Nelson Chamisa currently does not have a functioning political party represented in Parliament, provincial structures, local authorities, or other formal state institutions. Whether one supports him or not, that is simply the political reality. A single individual, no matter how popular, cannot meaningfully participate in a transitional arrangement on behalf of millions of citizens without an organised political structure behind him. Transitional governments are negotiated between institutions as happened with the GNU and organised political actors, not between a ruling party and a lone individual. For all his weaknesses and political miscalculations, I do not believe Nelson Chamisa would make the catastrophic mistake of joining a post-CAB 3 arrangement through co-option. Such a move would be viewed by many of his supporters as the ultimate treachery of the democratic struggle he claims to represent. It would simply be another way of abandoning the struggle against repression and oppression, and political incompetence, and effectively buying a ZANUPF card in exchange for a seat at Mnangagwa’s table. The moment he does that, he ceases to be an opposition actor. He would no longer be standing in opposition to ZANUPF, he would have joined it in all but name. Politics is ultimately judged by actions, not slogans. If you enter a government that you have spent years criticising and become a beneficiary of the very system you claim to oppose, then you have crossed the line from opposition to participation, you are now ZANUPF. At that point, no amount of rhetoric can change the reality that you have become part of the establishment you once promised to challenge. That is why I don’t think Nelson Chamisa would do that! ZANUPF tried to negotiate around such a compromise arrangement in 2021 and 2022. As has been reported before, it was Dr Alex Magaisa who put the brakes on the idea because he correctly argued that you cannot have an individual leader negotiating political power when he does not control a political party with parliamentary representation. His argument was straightforward. Government is ultimately a reflection of the mandate and representation that political parties have in Parliament. Once that position was formally communicated to the powers that be, the entire discussion effectively came to an end. That is why I struggle to see how any serious politician would negotiate as an individual to become part of a ZANUPF government. On what basis would they be there? Whom would they represent? What political constituency would they be bringing to the table? Governments are negotiated between organised political actors and institutions, not between a ruling party and a lone individual. If a former opposition leader joins a ZANUPF government without a political party mandate, parliamentary representation, or a broader negotiated national settlement, then that is not a transitional arrangement. It is simply co-option.

@CdeNMaswerasei @BitiTendai @DMwonzora @DrThoko_Khupe Ur narrative is now tired and boring try something else instead zvachamisa we know wat we want ourselves and can never be lectured by anyone easpecially you

🔸He laughed off Geza 🔸He scoffed at Timba 🔸He feared @advocatemahere breaking ranks and launching her own outfit 🔸He labelled @BitiTendai, @DMwonzora and @DrThoko_Khupe sellouts That is the true definition of a STUMBLING BLOCK to any meaningful revolution in Zimbabwe.

@KMutisi @Chofamba You and who

The people of Zimbabwe are celebrating 46 years of independence from Britain… And in London, @Chofamba is praying that there are enough IDLERS to join their vanity march… Zimbabwe is a sovereign state, we will Amend the Constitution ANY TIME!