Opinion / Columnist
There should never be anything criminal about criticising the president
14 hrs ago | Views
Why is the Zimbabwe government at war with its own citizens?
The recent arrest of journalist Blessed Mhlanga following his interview with war veteran and ZANU-PF Central Committee member Blessed Geza is yet another glaring example of Zimbabwe's assault on free speech.
Geza's supposed crime?
Calling for President Emmerson Mnangagwa's resignation on the grounds that he has failed to deliver on his promises to uplift ordinary citizens and fight high-level corruption.
In so doing, Geza is now wanted by the police for supposedly "insulting the president and undermining his authority".
This is the same fate that has befallen many Zimbabweans before him - charged under vague and repressive laws that criminalize criticism of the president, often framed as "insulting the president" or "undermining his authority."
But in a truly democratic society, is there anything illegal or even improper about calling for the resignation of a failing leader?
To directly receive articles from Tendai Ruben Mbofana, please join his WhatsApp Channel on: https://whatsapp.com/channel/0029VaqprWCIyPtRnKpkHe08
Why does Zimbabwe insist on treating such statements as crimes?
And why should its citizens reject this blatant erosion of their fundamental rights?
Demanding the resignation of a president is neither treasonous nor criminal.
It is, in fact, a fundamental democratic right.
In countries that uphold genuine democracy, citizens and political figures regularly call for the resignation of leaders without any fear of arrest or persecution.
In the United States, for example, presidents face constant scrutiny and public calls for them to step down.
During Donald Trump's first stint as president, millions of Americans - including high-profile politicians and activists - repeatedly called for his resignation, accusing him of mishandling issues such as racial justice and the COVID-19 pandemic.
Similarly, in France, citizens have staged mass protests demanding the resignation of President Emmanuel Macron over controversial policies, economic hardship, and accusations of failing to represent the interests of ordinary citizens.
Despite these intense criticisms, neither Trump nor Macron had their critics arrested or charged with criminal offenses for expressing their views.
So why does Zimbabwe insist on treating criticism of its leader as a crime?
The answer lies in the nature of authoritarian regimes.
Unlike democratic governments that accept dissent as a sign of political maturity, oppressive states view it as a threat to their grip on power.
By criminalizing statements against the president, the Zimbabwean government is not protecting the dignity of its leader but rather shielding itself from accountability.
It is not about respect or decorum - it is about control.
These laws are designed to silence opposition, suppress public discontent, and create a climate of fear where citizens dare not question those in power, no matter how badly they perform.
But beyond the political motives, there is a fundamental legal issue: criminalizing criticism of the president is unconstitutional.
The Zimbabwean Constitution, adopted in 2013, explicitly guarantees freedom of expression under Section 61, which states that every person has the right to "freedom of expression, which includes freedom to seek, receive, and communicate ideas and other information."
Furthermore, Section 67 guarantees every Zimbabwean the right to participate in political processes, including engaging in peaceful political activity.
Clearly, calling for the resignation of a leader who is perceived to have failed is well within these constitutional rights.
Zimbabwean courts have already ruled against such oppressive laws in the past.
In 2013, the Constitutional Court struck down a section of the Criminal Law (Codification and Reform) Act that criminalized "undermining the authority of the president," ruling that it was inconsistent with free speech protections.
Similarly, in 2016, the court ruled in Dhewa Mavhunga v The State that such laws were too vague and prone to abuse.
Yet, despite these rulings, the government continues to use these provisions selectively to silence critics, often knowing that the charges will not hold up in court but using the legal process itself as a tool of intimidation.
The Zimbabwean government's stance is made even more absurd by its attempt to justify these laws using arguments rooted in culture and religion.
Some have argued that in African culture, respect for authority is paramount and that criticizing a leader is akin to disrespecting a parent.
But leadership in a democratic state is not the same as familial hierarchy.
A president is not a father, and the people are not his children.
He is an elected public servant, accountable to the citizens who put him in office.
Respect is not automatic - it is earned.
If a leader fails to serve the people, they have every right to express their dissatisfaction, including demanding his resignation.
The notion that citizens must remain silent out of cultural deference is nothing more than a manipulative tactic to stifle dissent.
Similarly, some have attempted to frame criticism of the president as a violation of religious principles, arguing that leaders are ordained by God and should not be questioned.
But this is a dangerous misinterpretation of faith.
Religion has historically been used by oppressive regimes to justify all manner of injustices, from colonialism to slavery.
If anything, religious principles emphasize justice, truth, and righteousness - values that demand that corrupt and ineffective leadership be challenged, not blindly obeyed.
Zimbabweans should reject the cynical use of culture and religion as tools of political oppression.
The government's crackdown on free speech is not new.
Over the years, many Zimbabweans have been arrested for merely expressing their views about the president.
In 2020, opposition politician Jacob Ngarivhume was arrested for calling for protests against corruption and poor governance.
In 2019, activist Prosper Tiringindi was jailed for labeling Mnangagwa a "useless president."
Even ordinary citizens have not been spared - countless Zimbabweans have faced arrest and intimidation for expressing opinions that, in any democratic society, would be seen as legitimate political discourse.
This systematic repression has created an environment where citizens live in fear of expressing their thoughts, knowing that even the mildest criticism of the government could result in imprisonment.
Criminalizing criticism of the president not only violates democratic principles but also reveals a deep insecurity within the ruling elite.
Strong leaders do not need laws to protect them from criticism - effective leadership earns respect through performance, not repression.
If Mnangagwa's government were truly confident in its policies and achievements, it would have no need to arrest its critics.
The fact that it resorts to heavy-handed censorship only confirms its failure to address the grievances of its people.
A government that is genuinely working for the people should welcome scrutiny, not fear it.
Zimbabweans must resist and reject the normalization of these unjust laws.
A president is not above scrutiny.
If a leader fails, the people have every right to say so - loudly, publicly, and without fear of persecution.
Calling for a president's resignation is not a crime.
It is an act of democracy.
And any government that tries to convince its people otherwise has no interest in serving them - it only seeks to control them.
© Tendai Ruben Mbofana is a social justice advocate and writer. Please feel free to WhatsApp or Call: +263715667700 | +263782283975, or email: mbofana.tendairuben73@gmail.com, or visit website: https://mbofanatendairuben.news.blog/
The recent arrest of journalist Blessed Mhlanga following his interview with war veteran and ZANU-PF Central Committee member Blessed Geza is yet another glaring example of Zimbabwe's assault on free speech.
Geza's supposed crime?
Calling for President Emmerson Mnangagwa's resignation on the grounds that he has failed to deliver on his promises to uplift ordinary citizens and fight high-level corruption.
In so doing, Geza is now wanted by the police for supposedly "insulting the president and undermining his authority".
This is the same fate that has befallen many Zimbabweans before him - charged under vague and repressive laws that criminalize criticism of the president, often framed as "insulting the president" or "undermining his authority."
But in a truly democratic society, is there anything illegal or even improper about calling for the resignation of a failing leader?
To directly receive articles from Tendai Ruben Mbofana, please join his WhatsApp Channel on: https://whatsapp.com/channel/0029VaqprWCIyPtRnKpkHe08
Why does Zimbabwe insist on treating such statements as crimes?
And why should its citizens reject this blatant erosion of their fundamental rights?
Demanding the resignation of a president is neither treasonous nor criminal.
It is, in fact, a fundamental democratic right.
In countries that uphold genuine democracy, citizens and political figures regularly call for the resignation of leaders without any fear of arrest or persecution.
In the United States, for example, presidents face constant scrutiny and public calls for them to step down.
During Donald Trump's first stint as president, millions of Americans - including high-profile politicians and activists - repeatedly called for his resignation, accusing him of mishandling issues such as racial justice and the COVID-19 pandemic.
Similarly, in France, citizens have staged mass protests demanding the resignation of President Emmanuel Macron over controversial policies, economic hardship, and accusations of failing to represent the interests of ordinary citizens.
Despite these intense criticisms, neither Trump nor Macron had their critics arrested or charged with criminal offenses for expressing their views.
So why does Zimbabwe insist on treating criticism of its leader as a crime?
The answer lies in the nature of authoritarian regimes.
Unlike democratic governments that accept dissent as a sign of political maturity, oppressive states view it as a threat to their grip on power.
By criminalizing statements against the president, the Zimbabwean government is not protecting the dignity of its leader but rather shielding itself from accountability.
It is not about respect or decorum - it is about control.
These laws are designed to silence opposition, suppress public discontent, and create a climate of fear where citizens dare not question those in power, no matter how badly they perform.
But beyond the political motives, there is a fundamental legal issue: criminalizing criticism of the president is unconstitutional.
The Zimbabwean Constitution, adopted in 2013, explicitly guarantees freedom of expression under Section 61, which states that every person has the right to "freedom of expression, which includes freedom to seek, receive, and communicate ideas and other information."
Furthermore, Section 67 guarantees every Zimbabwean the right to participate in political processes, including engaging in peaceful political activity.
Clearly, calling for the resignation of a leader who is perceived to have failed is well within these constitutional rights.
Zimbabwean courts have already ruled against such oppressive laws in the past.
In 2013, the Constitutional Court struck down a section of the Criminal Law (Codification and Reform) Act that criminalized "undermining the authority of the president," ruling that it was inconsistent with free speech protections.
Similarly, in 2016, the court ruled in Dhewa Mavhunga v The State that such laws were too vague and prone to abuse.
Yet, despite these rulings, the government continues to use these provisions selectively to silence critics, often knowing that the charges will not hold up in court but using the legal process itself as a tool of intimidation.
Some have argued that in African culture, respect for authority is paramount and that criticizing a leader is akin to disrespecting a parent.
But leadership in a democratic state is not the same as familial hierarchy.
A president is not a father, and the people are not his children.
He is an elected public servant, accountable to the citizens who put him in office.
Respect is not automatic - it is earned.
If a leader fails to serve the people, they have every right to express their dissatisfaction, including demanding his resignation.
The notion that citizens must remain silent out of cultural deference is nothing more than a manipulative tactic to stifle dissent.
Similarly, some have attempted to frame criticism of the president as a violation of religious principles, arguing that leaders are ordained by God and should not be questioned.
But this is a dangerous misinterpretation of faith.
Religion has historically been used by oppressive regimes to justify all manner of injustices, from colonialism to slavery.
If anything, religious principles emphasize justice, truth, and righteousness - values that demand that corrupt and ineffective leadership be challenged, not blindly obeyed.
Zimbabweans should reject the cynical use of culture and religion as tools of political oppression.
The government's crackdown on free speech is not new.
Over the years, many Zimbabweans have been arrested for merely expressing their views about the president.
In 2020, opposition politician Jacob Ngarivhume was arrested for calling for protests against corruption and poor governance.
In 2019, activist Prosper Tiringindi was jailed for labeling Mnangagwa a "useless president."
Even ordinary citizens have not been spared - countless Zimbabweans have faced arrest and intimidation for expressing opinions that, in any democratic society, would be seen as legitimate political discourse.
This systematic repression has created an environment where citizens live in fear of expressing their thoughts, knowing that even the mildest criticism of the government could result in imprisonment.
Criminalizing criticism of the president not only violates democratic principles but also reveals a deep insecurity within the ruling elite.
Strong leaders do not need laws to protect them from criticism - effective leadership earns respect through performance, not repression.
If Mnangagwa's government were truly confident in its policies and achievements, it would have no need to arrest its critics.
The fact that it resorts to heavy-handed censorship only confirms its failure to address the grievances of its people.
A government that is genuinely working for the people should welcome scrutiny, not fear it.
Zimbabweans must resist and reject the normalization of these unjust laws.
A president is not above scrutiny.
If a leader fails, the people have every right to say so - loudly, publicly, and without fear of persecution.
Calling for a president's resignation is not a crime.
It is an act of democracy.
And any government that tries to convince its people otherwise has no interest in serving them - it only seeks to control them.
© Tendai Ruben Mbofana is a social justice advocate and writer. Please feel free to WhatsApp or Call: +263715667700 | +263782283975, or email: mbofana.tendairuben73@gmail.com, or visit website: https://mbofanatendairuben.news.blog/
Source - Tendai Ruben Mbofana
All articles and letters published on Bulawayo24 have been independently written by members of Bulawayo24's community. The views of users published on Bulawayo24 are therefore their own and do not necessarily represent the views of Bulawayo24. Bulawayo24 editors also reserve the right to edit or delete any and all comments received.
