eria

I am a soldier. I deal in facts, in patterns, and in the kind of institutional pattern analysis that a lifetime of military intelligence work teaches you to apply when something does not add up. Something does not add up. And I will not pretend otherwise simply because saying so makes powerful people uncomfortable. Nelson Chamisa is the most recognisable opposition figure in Zimbabwe. He is a man who built his entire political identity on the promise of democratic resistance on the proposition that he and his movement stood between the Zimbabwean people and the permanent entrenchment of one-party political dominance. Constitutional Amendment Bill No. 3 is the most consequential assault on Zimbabwe's democratic architecture since the Constitution was adopted in 2013. It proposes to remove the direct popular presidential vote. It proposes to extend the presidential term. It proposes to restructure the relationship between the executive and the legislature in ways that by any honest constitutional assessment concentrate power rather than distribute it. This is precisely the kind of moment that Nelson Chamisa's entire political career was supposedly building toward. This is the hill that the opposition was always supposed to die on loudly, visibly, and with the full mobilisation of every democratic resource at its disposal. Where is Nelson Chamisa? Not a major speech. Not a sustained public campaign. Not the kind of front-line democratic resistance that CAB3 demands and that Chamisa's own political biography would lead every reasonable observer to expect. Silence. Measured, conspicuous, and to those of us who study political behaviour for a living deeply, troublingly meaningful silence. In military intelligence we have a term for the absence of expected activity in a known operational area. We call it a tactical withdrawal. And tactical withdrawals do not happen without a reason.When an actor who has consistently and loudly occupied a political space suddenly vacates that space precisely when the stakes in that space are at their highest the intelligence analyst's first question is never "perhaps they simply changed their mind."The first question is: what changed? What changed for Nelson Chamisa between his years of loud, sustained, front-line democratic resistance and his current studied silence on the most important constitutional question Zimbabwe has faced in a generation? I am not a court of law. I am not a prosecutor. I am not in a position to answer that question definitively and I will not pretend otherwise. But I am a Zimbabwean soldier who swore an oath to this republic. And that oath requires me to ask the question publicly loudly, on the record, and without apology. What changed, Mr. Chamisa? What silenced you? The CAB3 process is happening within that environment. And within that environment, questions about who is being resourced to do what and who is being resourced to do nothing are not paranoid conspiracy theorising. They are legitimate, necessary, urgent questions of democratic accountability. I am aware that documents are circulating. I am aware that allegations are being made in various quarters about the financial dimensions of certain political actors' behaviour around CAB3. Today I am in a position to verify those documents or those allegations independently. But I am in a position and I feel the obligation to say this A huge corruption deal has caused democratic backsliding in zimbabwe which is aiding CAB3 . This was achieved by bribing of a top opposition leader Nero chamisa who recieved a staggering amount to the tune of 5million dolars and necessitated /laundered by one of the top law firms in zimbabwe. Not speaking about the US$20 million that Nelson Chamisa pocketed as a pay off to go on a forced sabatical and move go mute on active politics until 2030 . The “Gods” have favoured mukomana apart from the $20million

A member of an Independent Commission, such as the Zimbabwe Human Rights Commission, can only be removed from office under section 237(2) of the Constitution of Zimbabwe. Section 237(3) expressly provides that the procedure for removing a judge also applies to members of an Independent Commission; accordingly, a tribunal must be appointed on the recommendation of the Judicial Service Commission and the member must be found guilty of misconduct before removal. Reassigning Jessie Majome to the Public Service Commission therefore constitutes removal from office and is unconstitutional. Reliance on section 202(1)(b) is unavailing: that provision does not affect the security of tenure enjoyed by Majome is of no application to the situation at hand, and the attempt effectively seeks to demote her from Chairperson of an Independent Commission to an ordinary commissioner of the PSC. We cannot sit idly by while such serious violations occur. The Department of Justice has failed in its duties, with potentially grave consequences.

We have heard the VP talk in parables and yet never defended the late Blessed Geza, now he is talking again and it remains talk unless he comes out and condemns CAB3. UNTIL then Rt Gen Chiwenga is part of the problem, part of the mess we are in and not the solution.