Author: TSA Press

The
Constitution
of
Zimbabwe
Amendment
Bill
(No.
3),
2026
seeks
to
introduce
several
changes,
including
altering
the
method
of
electing
the
President
and
revising
the
composition
of
the
Senate.

Some
legal
analysts
argue
that
the
proposals
risk
undermining
key
provisions
of
the
2013
Constitution,
while
government
officials
maintain
that
the
reforms
fall
within
Parliament’s
constitutional
mandate.

Constitutional
law
scholar
and
human
rights
lawyer
Dr
Justice
Mavedzenge
said
the
proposed
amendments
form
part
of
what
he
described
as
a
broader
pattern
in
Zimbabwe’s
political
history.

“This
is
not
the
first
time
we
have
seen
significant
shifts
in
how
power
is
organised
in
Zimbabwe,”
he
said.

Dr
Mavedzenge
referred
to
the
disputed
2008
elections,
which
led
to
the
formation
of
a
Government
of
National
Unity
in
2009
and
the
eventual
drafting
of
the
2013
Constitution.
He
also
cited
the
2017
military
intervention
that
resulted
in
the
resignation
of
former
President
Robert
Mugabe.

He
argued
that
constitutional
changes
affecting
term
limits
or
electoral
processes
should
be
approached
with
caution,
as
they
may
have
long-term
consequences
for
democratic
stability.

“There
is
a
relationship
between
constitutional
amendments,
electoral
processes
and
political
stability,”
he
said.
“If
safeguards
are
weakened,
it
can
affect
public
confidence
in
governance.”

Dr
Mavedzenge
pointed
to
constitutional
provisions
that
define
presidential
term
limits.
Section
95(2)(b)
sets
a
presidential
term
at
five
years,
while
Section
91(2)
disqualifies
a
person
from
election
as
President
after
serving
two
terms.

He
said
these
provisions
form
part
of
the
constitutional
framework
adopted
in
2013
and
should
not
be
diluted
without
broad
public
consultation.

“If
there
are
genuine
concerns
about
political
tensions,
the
first
duty
of
leadership
is
to
respect
the
Constitution
and
the
people
governed
under
it,”
he
said.

Another
proposed
change
would
repeal
Section
92
of
the
Constitution
and
replace
direct
popular
election
of
the
President
with
a
system
in
which
Members
of
Parliament
elect
the
President
in
a
joint
sitting
of
the
Senate
and
National
Assembly.

Legal
analyst
Dr
Vusumuzi
Sibanda
said
the
proposed
shift
could
significantly
alter
Zimbabwe’s
electoral
system.

He
drew
attention
to
Clause
6
of
the
Bill,
which
seeks
to
amend
Section
120
of
the
Constitution
to
increase
the
number
of
senators
from
80
to
90,
including
10
appointed
by
the
President
for
their
professional
skills
and
competencies.

“When
read
together,
these
clauses
mean
that
appointed
senators
would
participate
in
electing
the
President,”
Dr
Sibanda
said.
“That
has
implications
for
how
balanced
the
process
would
be.”

He
added
that
the
cumulative
effect
of
the
changes
would
reshape
the
structure
of
presidential
elections
and
urged
citizens
to
examine
the
proposals
carefully.

The
debate
comes
amid
broader
discussions
across
Africa
about
constitutional
reform
and
the
balance
of
power
between
branches
of
government.

Parliament
is
expected
to
consider
the
Bill
in
the
coming
months,
with
both
supporters
and
critics
calling
for
robust
public
engagement
before
any
amendments
are
adopted.

In
a
notice
issued
this
week,
the
Parliament
said
it
was
acting
in
line
with
Section
328(4)
of
the
Constitution,
which
requires
lawmakers
to
seek
public
views
on
any
proposed
constitutional
amendment.

The
notice
states
that,
once
a
constitutional
Bill
has
been
published,
Parliament
“must
invite
members
of
the
public
to
express
their
views
on
the
proposed
Bill
in
public
meetings
and
through
written
submissions,
and
must
convene
meetings
and
provide
facilities
to
enable
the
public
to
do
so”.

Parliament
said
comments
on
the
Bill
should
be
submitted
by
email
to
the
Clerk
of
Parliament
at
clerk@parlzim.gov.zw
or
delivered
physically
to
Parliament
Building
in
Mt
Hampden,
Harare,
by
15
May
2026.

Public
hearing
dates
will
be
announced
in
due
course.

The
Amendment
Bill
has
generated
debate
among
legal
experts,
politicians
and
civil
society
groups.

Among
the
proposals
is
a
change
to
the
method
of
electing
the
President.
The
Bill
seeks
to
repeal
Section
92
of
the
Constitution
of
Zimbabwe,
which
currently
provides
for
the
President
to
be
elected
by
direct
popular
vote,
and
replace
it
with
a
system
in
which
the
President
would
be
elected
by
Members
of
Parliament
sitting
jointly.

Some
constitutional
lawyers
argue
that
changes
affecting
the
structure
of
presidential
elections
and
related
safeguards
should
be
approached
with
caution,
saying
they
could
have
long-term
implications
for
the
country’s
democratic
framework.

Government
officials,
however,
say
the
proposed
amendments
are
being
processed
in
accordance
with
constitutional
procedures
and
fall
within
Parliament’s
legislative
mandate.

However,
questions
over
the
credibility
of
the
national
healing
process
continue
to
linger
after
the
government
has
indicated
the
hearing
phase
could
conclude
within
months.

This
has
led
to
growing
calls
for
clarity
on
whether
the
testimonies
will
be
made
public
or
a
transparent
compensation
framework
would
be
established
and
if
those
responsible
for
the
abuses
will
face
prosecution.

This
week,
Attorney-General
Virginia
Mabiza,
who
heads
the
secretariat
of
the
Matabeleland
Peacebuilding
Outreach
Programme,
revealed
to
state
controlled
media
that
the
cumulative
number
of
documented
testimonies
had
now
surpassed
25
000.

Mabiza
indicated
the
community
consultative
programme,
launched
by
President
Emmerson
Mnangagwa
in
July
2024
yet
officially
started
last
year
in
June
could
move
towards
conclusion
within
the
next
four
months.

The
hearings,
spearheaded
by
traditional
leaders
across
Matabeleland
North
and
South,
are
part
of
what
the
government
describes
as
a
“home-grown
solution”
to
solve
the
1980s
genocide.

However,
for
observers,
the
sheer
number
of
testimonies
collected
four
decades
after
the
violence
underscores
the
magnitude
of
the
atrocities
and
raises
urgent
questions
about
truth-telling,
accountability
and
compensation.

Bulawayo
mayor
and
human
rights
lawyer
David
Coltart
said
the
figure
itself
is
telling.

“The
fact
that
25
000
people
gave
testimony
regarding
Gukurahundi
human
rights
abuses
over
40
years
since
they
happened
in
itself
demonstrates
Gukurahundi’s
horrendous
scale,”
he
said.

Coltart
was
one
of
the
contributors
to
the
1997
landmark
report,
Breaking
the
Silence,
Building
True
Peace,
compiled
by
the
Catholic
Commission
for
Justice
and
Peace
(CCJP)
and
the
Legal
Resources
Foundation.

The
report
documented
widespread
killings,
torture
and
sexual
violence
in
Matabeleland
and
parts
of
the
Midlands
during
the
early
years
of
independence.

“When
we
published
‘Breaking
the
Silence’
in
1997
we
said
it
was
written
conservatively
to
make
sure
that
its
findings
could
never
be
challenged
or
disputed,
which
they
haven’t
ever
been,”
Coltart
said.

“These
testimonies
show
that
the
murders,
rapes,
torture
and
other
abuses
documented
in
‘Breaking
the
Silence’
were
just
the
tip
of
the
iceberg.”

Between
1983
and
1987,
the
North
Korea-trained
Fifth
Brigade
carried
out
operations
in
Matabeleland
provinces
and
parts
of
Midlands
following
allegations
of
dissident
activity.

The
crackdown
left
thousands
of
civilians
dead
and
many
more
traumatised,
according
to
civic
groups.

Coltart
said
the
next
phase
of
the
process
would
be
crucial.

“The
first
question
we
now
face
is
whether
the
testimony
of
these
25
000
witnesses
is
ever
going
to
be
published
so
that
the
public
knows
the
truth,”
he
said.

“Secondly,
what
is
the
government
going
to
do
to
compensate
those
who
have
suffered
so
much?
Thirdly,
what
is
the
government
going
to
do
to
bring
the
perpetrators
of
such
abuse
to
justice?
Finally,
what
is
the
government
going
to
do
to
ensure
that
Zimbabweans
are
never
again
subjected
to
such
crimes
against
humanity?”

These
questions
were
echoed
by
political
analyst
Mxolisi
Ncube,
who
expressed
scepticism
about
the
structure
and
intent
of
the
current
process.

“What
should
worry
people
most
is
that,
if
the
government
were
this
genuine
about
the
process,
why
conduct
a
separate
after-the-fact,
closed-door
hearing
process
instead
of
just
using
the
already
existing
literature
from
the
Chihambakwe
and
Dumbutshena
reports,
and
civic
group
reports
by
the
likes
of
the
CCJP
report?”
he
said.

Ncube
noted
some
of
those
currently
in
government
were
part
of
the
political
establishment
during
the
period
under
review.

“Some
of
the
people
who
are
in
charge
of
the
government
right
now
are
those
who
were
directly
involved
in
the
atrocities,
they
know
the
reasons
and
impact
of
Gukurahundi
in
Matabeleland
as
well
as
the
after-effects
on
the
country’s
social
fabric,”
he
said,
arguing
the
initiative
risks
being
reduced
to
a
symbolic
exercise.

“I
think
this
whole
process
lacks
the
genuine
spirit
of
seeking
to
resolve
the
atrocities
and
is
only
meant
to
lead
to
a
pre-planned
‘case-closed’
declaration
of
peace
with
neither
reconciliation
nor
justice.

“It’s
President
Emmerson
Mnangagwa
desperately
trying
to
give
credence
and
substance
to
his
‘let
bygones
be
bygones’
declaration,
this
time
claiming
it’s
from
the
victims
themselves.”

Ngqabutho
Nicholas
Mabhena,
leader
of
the
Zimbabwe
Communist
Party
(ZCP),
also
raised
concerns
about
transparency
and
questioned
the
reliability
of
the
25
000
figure
in
the
absence
of
independent
oversight.

“We
do
not
have
evidence
that
what
the
government
is
saying
is
accurate
but
we
rely
on
the
media
to
report.
So
if
the
government
says
it
has
received
or
collected
25
000
testimonials
we
do
not
know,”
Mabhena
said.

He
pointed
out
that
victims
in
the
Diaspora
may
have
been
excluded
and
that
the
closed
nature
of
the
hearings,
from
which
the
media
was
barred,
makes
verification
difficult.

“Because
of
the
media
blackout,
we
do
not
know
if
victims
were
able
to
present
the
testimonies
without
any
fear
or
intimidation.
Since
this
was
a
closed
testimony,
we
suspect,
given
the
nature
of
our
body
politics
in
Zimbabwe,
that
victims
may
have
been
intimidated
to
give
testimonies,”
he
claimed.

Mabhena
noted
that
compensation
should
not
precede
a
full,
independent
investigation.

“In
our
view,
when
we
talk
of
compensation
it
must
be
the
last
to
be
done
after
an
international
body
has
investigated
the
circumstances
that
led
to
Gukurahundi
and
the
genocide’s
modus
operandi,”
he
said.

He
questioned
whether
traditional
leaders
have
the
institutional
capacity
to
handle
such
a
complex
and
politically
sensitive
matter,
arguing
that
the
historical
context
involves
international
dimensions
that
require
scrutiny.

Mabhena
referenced
the
role
of
former
Prime
Minister,
the
late
Robert
Mugabe,
during
that
time,
who
travelled
to
North
Korea
soon
after
independence
to
sign
a
military
pact
that
led
to
the
training
of
the
Fifth
Brigade.

“An
international
investigating
body
must
be
established
to
know
what
that
agreement
entailed,
and
how
the
training
was
conducted,”
he
said.

He
added
that
Britain,
which
played
a
role
in
integrating
the
former
liberation
armies,
ZPRA,
ZANLA
and
the
Rhodesian
forces
at
independence,
should
also
account
for
what
it
knew
about
developments
at
the
time.

The
Bill,
which
is
under
consideration,
seeks
to
lengthen
the
terms
of
the
President
and
Members
of
Parliament
elected
in
the
2023
harmonised
elections.
While
it
does
not
expressly
mention
councillors,
legal
experts
say
the
changes
could
automatically
apply
to
local
authorities.

Supporters
argue
the
extension
would
reduce
what
they
call
perpetual
“election
mode”,
allowing
more
time
for
policy
implementation
and
national
stability.
But
critics
warn
it
could
weaken
democratic
accountability,
particularly
at
local
level,
where
residents
frequently
complain
about
refuse
collection,
water
shortages
and
crumbling
infrastructure.

Constitutional
and
human
rights
lawyer
Vusumuzi
Sibanda
said
the
implications
of
the
Bill
stretch
beyond
national
office
bearers.

“I
think
since
elections
are
harmonised,
this
means
the
councillors
also
stay
for
another
additional
two
years
and
their
cycle
is
also
changed
to
seven
years
in
principle,”
he
said.

He
added
that
although
the
Bill
does
not
expressly
amend
provisions
relating
to
councillors,
the
omission
could
trigger
legal
challenges.

“The
question
might
arise
on
the
express
amendment
of
sections
dealing
with
councillors
which
has
not
been
included,
but
that
could
be
used
in
court
to
argue
that
separate
local
elections
would
be
required,
which
would
be
costly,”
he
said.

Another
constitutional
lawyer,
Musa
Kika,
pointed
to
Section
278
of
the
Constitution,
which
links
the
tenure
of
councillors
to
that
of
Members
of
Parliament.

“What
it
means
is
the
drafters
of
this
Bill
realised
they
did
not
need
to
make
an
explicit
provision
for
councillors
because
whatever
applies
to
Members
of
Parliament
in
terms
of
the
end
of
their
tenure
applies
to
councillors,”
he
said.

“If
MPs
move
to
seven
years,
councillors
would
also
do
seven
years.”

That
interpretation
suggests
councillors
elected
in
2023
could
remain
in
office
until
2030
without
seeking
a
fresh
mandate
from
voters.

The
Mayor
of
City
of
Bulawayo,
David
Coltart,
said
the
proposed
changes
would
effectively
lengthen
councillors’
time
in
office
and
should
therefore
be
subjected
to
a
referendum.

“The
Urban
Councils
Act
is
silent
about
the
term
in
office
and
so
they
will
argue
that
councillors
will
automatically
remain
in
office
until
the
next
harmonised
election,”
he
said.

“I
don’t
disagree
with
such
an
interpretation,
but
because
the
effect
of
the
amendment
is
to
lengthen
a
councillor’s
time
in
office,
then
as
incumbents
that
is
prohibited
and,
if
changed,
that
change
must
be
subjected
to
a
referendum.”

Mr
Coltart
has
publicly
rejected
proposals
that
could
see
him
remain
in
office
beyond
his
five-year
mandate,
describing
the
amendment
as
self-serving
and
disconnected
from
the
interests
of
citizens.

“This
amendment
won’t
just
benefit
the
President
but
also
mayors,
councillors
and
MPs,”
he
wrote
on
X.
“It
is
nothing
about
the
interests
of
the
people
–
it
is
simply
about
the
interests
of
all
in
the
political
elite
who
were
elected
by
the
people
for
five
years,
but
who
will
now
have
jobs
and
perks
for
at
least
another
two
years.”

He
said
his
tenure
as
mayor
would
end
five
years
after
his
election,
regardless
of
any
changes
to
the
Constitution
that
are
not
endorsed
through
what
he
described
as
a
lawful
and
fair
referendum.

His
stance
was
echoed
by
councillor
Denford
Ngadziore,
who
said
his
mandate
runs
until
2028
and
cannot
be
altered
through
political
processes.

“Constitution
is
the
supreme
law,”
he
said.

Ahuman
rights
advocate
has
criticised
Zimbabwe’s
compensation
framework
for
former
commercial
farmers,
warning
that
it
favours
foreign
landowners
over
local
citizens.

Ben
Freeth,
spokesperson
for
SADC
Tribunal
Rights
Watch,
made
the
comments
in
an
open
letter
to
President
Emmerson
Mnangagwa.

In
the
letter
dated
24
February
2026,
Freeth
commends
the
government
for
moves
to
compensate
the
small
percentage
of
landowners
from
countries
that
have
bilateral
investment
treaties
(BITs)
with
Zimbabwe,
however
argues
that
Zimbabwean
farmers
and
others
from
non-BIT
countries
are
treated
unfairly
and
discriminatorily.

“I
am
writing
to
you
out
of
a
deep
sense
of
love
for
Zimbabwe,
her
people
and
our
collective
future,”
Freeth
said
in
the
letter,
acknowledging
the
government’s
efforts
to
compensate
“the
0.5
percent
or
so
of
landowners
who
come
from
foreign
countries
which
have
treaty
agreements
with
Zimbabwe.”

He
specifically
cited
investors
from
the
Netherlands,
Germany,
Switzerland
and
Denmark.

“These
landowners…
are
either
being
paid
for
their
farms
or
given
the
option
to
go
back
to
their
farms,
if
they
wish
to
take
that
option,”
Freeth
said.

He
argued
that
once
these
farms
are
paid
for,
or
returned,
“the
title
deeds
and
the
rights
that
they
bestow,
will
be
good,
and
any
future
on
those
farms
will
be
able
to
be
secure
and
blessed.
Secure,
transferrable
and
bankable
property
rights
are
the
key
to
a
productive
and
prosperous
future.”

However,
he
contrasts
this
with
the
treatment
of
Zimbabwean
farmers
and
those
from
countries
without
bilateral
investment
treaties.

“Unfortunately,
the
moves
to
compensate
farmers
and
landowners
who
are
Zimbabweans
or
from
countries
that
do
not
have
bilateral
investment
treaties,
are
different,”
Freeth
said.

“Such
farmers
are
only
being
given
the
option
of
receiving
a
one
percent
payment
in
cash
for
a
discounted
valuation
of
the
improvements
on
their
farms
followed
by
a
further
one
percent.
Any
further
payments
are
due
to
be
in
government
bonds
which,
if
history
is
a
judge,
will
not
be
worth
very
much.”

Freeth
argued
this
will
create
a
dual
system
of
rights.

“We
therefore
have
a
very
weighted
system
of
favouritism
where
foreigners
are
being
allocated
massively
disproportionate
rights
over
and
above
the
rights
of
local
people.
How
can
one
group
of
people
be
allocated
more
rights
than
another
group
of
people?
This
is
discriminatory,”
said
the
spokesperson.

His
comments
come
as
some
have
said
that
many
of
the
affected
Zimbabwean
farmers
are
elderly
and
struggling
because
their
farms
were
their
pensions
and
have
nothing
to
fall
back
on.

Freeth
also
invokes
the
landmark
Campbell
case
before
the
now-defunct
Southern
African
Development
Community
Tribunal,
commonly
known
as
the
SADC
Tribunal.

“You
will
be
aware
of
the
Campbell
Judgment
in
the
regional
court
of
justice
and
court
of
last
resort,
the
SADC
Tribunal
on
28
November
2008,”
he
said
referring
to
the
ruling
that
found
Zimbabwe’s
land
seizures
discriminatory
and
ordered
compensation.

The
case
was
brought
by
commercial
farmer
Mike
Campbell
and
others.
Freeth
says
the
Government
was
ordered
to
compensate
Campbell
and
two
other
farmers
by
June
2009.

“President
Mugabe
did
not
do
so.
Nearly
17
years
later,
those
three
farmers
have
not
received
any
money,
or
any
offer
of
any
money,
as
compensation
for
their
property,”
Freeth
said,
further
alleging
that
when
the
farmers
returned
to
the
Tribunal
seeking
enforcement,
political
pressure
resulted
in
the
suspension
of
its
judges
in
2011,
leaving
the
court
unable
to
function.

“The
SADC
Tribunal
has
still
been
unable
to
deal
with
the
case…
because
the
judges
have
still
not
been
reappointed
by
SADC.”

Read: https://cite.org.zw/sadc-tribunals-17-year-suspension-denying-justice-to-millions/

Freeth
stated
although
other
farmers
involved
in
the
SADC
case
were
initially
told
they
could
continue
farming,
most
were
later
removed
during
the
tenure
of
former
President
Robert
Mugabe,
often
amid
violence.

“None
of
them
have
been
compensated
or
afforded
the
opportunity
to
go
back
to
their
farms
during
the
eight
years
since
President
Mugabe
left
office,”
he
said,
arguing
that
failure
to
address
the
SADC
judgment
undermines
investor
confidence
and
international
relations.

“In
the
interests
of
encouraging
investors
and
investment,
this
situation
needs
rectifying.
We
as
Zimbabwe
cannot
remain
in
contempt
of
a
final
and
binding
judgment
given
under
the
SADC
Treaty.”

Freeth
added
that
compliance
with
SADC
Tribunal
judgments
has
been
cited
by
the
United
States
as
a
prerequisite
for
American
investment
and
support.

His
letter
also
references
Mount
Carmel
farm,
formerly
owned
by
Campbell,
which
he
claimed
was
now
occupied
by
businessman
Paul
Tungwarara
“in
contravention
of
the
SADC
Tribunal
judgment.”

“It
is
tragic
to
note
that
the
late
Mike
Campbell…
died
as
a
result
of
the
injuries
sustained
when
thugs
abducted
him
two
weeks
before
the
court
case,
trying
to
dissuade
him
from
continuing
with
the
high-profile
case,”
Freeth
said.

Freeth
alleged
that
Tungwarara
was
also
awarded
a
US$15
million
tender
to
build
a
wall
around
State
House,
a
figure
he
contrasts
with
the
US$3
million
reportedly
allocated
in
the
national
budget
for
compensating
thousands
of
non-BIT
farmers.

“This
figure
alone
is
five
times
the
paltry
US$3
million
amount
allocated
in
the
budget
for
paying
out
the
thousands
of
farmers
who
do
not
have
the
rights
afforded
to
them
that
have
been
afforded
to
the
foreign
farmers,”
he
said.

“Locals
are
suffering
while
foreigners
and
the
elite
are
allocated
uncompensated
farms
and
large
sums
of
the
State’s
limited
resources.”

The
Zimbabwean
government
has
previously
defended
its
compensation
framework
as
a
pragmatic
approach
that
balances
constitutional
obligations
with
fiscal
realities.

HARARE
—
The
United
States
has
announced
it
will
begin
winding
down
health
assistance
to
Zimbabwe
after
President
Emmerson
Mnangagwa
walked
away
from
negotiations
over
a
proposed
bilateral
health
agreement.

The
diplomatic
rupture
puts
1.2
million
HIV
patients
at
immediate
risk,
unless
the
Zimbabwe
government
steps
up
to
fill
the
funding
gap.

In
a
press
statement
issued
after
ZimLive
on
Monday
revealed
the
breakdown
in
talks,
US
Ambassador
Pamela
Tremont
confirmed
the
consequences
would
be
swift
and
sweeping.

“We
will
now
turn
to
the
difficult
and
regrettable
task
of
winding
down
our
health
assistance
in
Zimbabwe,”
she
said.

Tremont,
who
met
Zimbabwe’s
foreign
minister
Amon
Murwira
last
week,
said
the
Zimbabwe
government
had
“assured
us
it
is
prepared
to
sustain
the
fight
against
HIV/AIDS.”

“We
wish
them
well,”
she
added
in
a
comment
that
read
less
as
a
pleasantry
than
a
pointed
transfer
of
responsibility.

The
memorandum
of
understanding
(MoU)
was
being
promoted
by
Washington
as
the
future
framework
for
US
health
support
to
Zimbabwe
under
its
America
First
Global
Health
Strategy
(AFGHS).
But
Harare
found
its
conditions
unacceptable
on
multiple
fronts.

A
letter
first
reported
by
ZimLive
dated
December
23,
2025,
and
written
by
foreign
affairs
secretary
Albert
Chimbindi
instructed
the
secretaries
for
finance
and
health
to
halt
all
discussions
immediately,
on
direct
orders
from
the
president.

“The
president
has
directed
that
Zimbabwe
must
discontinue
any
negotiation
with
the
USA
on
the
clearly
lopsided
MoU
that
blatantly
compromises
and
undermines
the
sovereignty
and
independence
of
Zimbabwe
as
a
country,”
the
letter
stated.

Diplomatic
sources
said
Mnangagwa
objected
specifically
to
US
demands
for
access
to
Zimbabwe’s
national
health
data,
which
officials
characterised
as
intelligence
overreach,
and
to
provisions
linking
the
deal
to
access
to
the
country’s
critical
mineral
resources.

The
US
pushed
back
hard
on
that
characterisation.
The
embassy
said
the
rejected
MoU
would
have
provided
$367
million
over
five
years,
slightly
more
than
the
$350
million
figure
first
reported,
covering
HIV/AIDS
treatment
and
prevention,
tuberculosis,
malaria,
maternal
and
child
health,
and
disease
outbreak
preparedness.

It
described
the
deal
as
the
largest
potential
health
investment
in
Zimbabwe
by
any
international
funder,
built
on
a
co-funding
model
intended
to
put
Zimbabwe
on
a
path
toward
self-reliance
by
gradually
increasing
its
own
health
budget
alongside
American
support.

Washington
also
pointed
to
the
broader
continental
picture
as
a
rebuttal
to
Harare’s
framing.
Sixteen
African
countries
have
now
signed
similar
agreements,
unlocking
a
combined
$18.3
billion
in
new
health
funding
–
$11.2
billion
from
the
US
and
$7.1
billion
in
co-investment
from
the
recipient
countries
themselves.

“The
United
States
has
a
responsibility
to
American
taxpayers
to
invest
their
resources
where
mutual
accountability,
transparency,
and
shared
commitment
are
assured,”
Tremont
said.

The
US
has
provided
more
than
$1.9
billion
in
health
support
to
Zimbabwe
since
2006,
and
American-funded
programmes
are
credited
with
helping
Zimbabwe
achieve
the
UNAIDS
95-95-95
targets,
the
global
benchmark
for
HIV
treatment
and
suppression.
The
1.2
million
Zimbabweans
currently
receiving
HIV
treatment
through
US-supported
programmes
now
face
an
uncertain
future
as
those
programmes
are
wound
down.

Mnangagwa’s
government
has
not
said
publicly
where
it
intends
to
source
replacement
funding,
nor
detailed
a
timeline
for
transitioning
patients
to
alternative
support.

NAIROBI,
Kenya
—
Kenyan
authorities
have
expelled
Zimbabwean
constitutional
lawyer
and
civic
activist
Brian
Bright
Kagoro,
accusing
him
of
involvement
in
a
foreign-backed
scheme
to
foment
political
unrest
through
organised
protests.

Kagoro,
the
managing
director
of
programmes
at
the
Open
Society
Foundations
(OSF)
Africa,
was
declared
persona
non
grata
and
deported
late
Sunday
after
being
detained
and
questioned
for
several
hours
by
immigration
and
security
officials.

He
was
escorted
out
of
the
country
via
Jomo
Kenyatta
International
Airport,
officials
confirmed.

Security
agencies
say
the
decision
followed
a
months-long
investigation
into
what
they
allege
was
a
coordinated
effort
to
mobilise
political
dissent
in
Kenya,
exploiting
economic
pressures
and
youth
activism.

Kenya’s
Capital
FM,
citing
officials
who
spoke
on
condition
of
anonymity
because
they
were
not
authorised
to
brief
the
media,
reported
that
Kagoro
made
several
trips
to
Nairobi
in
2025
and
allegedly
undertook
to
help
raise
approximately
US$1.2
million
to
support
activist
networks
in
the
country.

Authorities
claim
the
funds
were
intended
to
reignite
the
youth-led
protests
that
rocked
Kenya
in
2024,
forcing
the
government
to
abandon
proposed
tax
increases
and
triggering
weeks
of
nationwide
demonstrations.
The
protests
were
largely
organised
through
social
media
platforms.

Organisers
of
those
demonstrations
have
consistently
denied
receiving
foreign
funding,
insisting
the
movement
was
grassroots-driven.

A
senior
security
official
said
intelligence
gathered
over
six
months
pointed
to
what
authorities
believe
was
a
deliberate
strategy
to
manufacture
unrest.

“We
have
evidence,
gathered
painstakingly
over
the
last
six
months,
that
indicates
a
calculated
attempt
to
engineer
civil
disorder,”
the
official
said.

The
government
has
warned
that
foreign
nationals
suspected
of
interfering
in
Kenya’s
internal
political
processes
will
be
denied
entry,
closely
monitored,
or
expelled.

During
questioning,
Kagoro
reportedly
rejected
the
allegations,
telling
investigators
that
his
visit
to
Kenya
was
for
personal
reasons
and
professional
engagements.
He
said
he
had
travelled
to
attend
a
family
event
and
participate
in
a
conference
focused
on
critical
minerals
and
artificial
intelligence.

While
acknowledging
long-standing
relationships
with
Kenyan
civil
society
organisations,
Kagoro
denied
coordinating
protests
or
financing
political
activity,
Capital
FM
reported.

Security
agencies
nevertheless
allege
that
some
of
his
public
engagements
–
including
appearances
at
a
judiciary
accountability
forum
and
a
technology
innovation
event
–
were
used
to
broaden
activist
networks.

Investigators
also
cited
Kagoro’s
connections
to
the
Open
Society
Foundations,
an
international
philanthropic
organisation
that
has
faced
criticism
from
some
Kenyan
political
leaders,
who
accuse
foreign
donors
of
meddling
in
domestic
politics.

Kagoro
is
a
co-founder
of
the
Crisis
in
Zimbabwe
Coalition
and
has
spent
nearly
two
decades
working
in
Nairobi,
where
he
became
a
prominent
figure
within
regional
governance,
democracy,
and
civic
advocacy
circles.

Supporters
describe
him
as
a
seasoned
strategist
and
mentor
to
civic
movements
across
Africa.

Security
officials
further
claimed
Kagoro
participated
in
encrypted
messaging
platforms
and
is
being
examined
for
possible
links
to
election-related
unrest
in
Tanzania,
though
no
evidence
supporting
those
allegations
has
been
made
public.