Thabani Mpofu's assault on Fuzwayo:Gaslighting Matabeleland

Advocate Thabani Mpofu's X post, which outrageously likens Mbuso Fuzwayo, Ibhetshu LikaZulu, and their lawyer, Nqobani Sithole, to "dogs" while portraying this writer as their owner, demands a sharp and resolute response. This dehumanizing rhetoric, laced with contempt and evocative of the stigmatizing "cockroach" type of imagery similar to the kind used during the Rwandan genocide, cannot go unchallenged. It reveals a glaring failure in professional and ethical conduct from a self-proclaimed defender of the Constitution and "everything right, civil, and sacred."

Rogue Preference for Political Brawls Over the Law
Mpofu, who styles himself as a guardian of justice, has shockingly urged Zimbabweans to bypass the courts in response to Zanu-PF's proposed extension of the presidential term of office to 2030. Dismissing it as a mere "political issue" and a "dirty dog fight" in his 31 October 2025, X post, his position is not just misguided - it represents a brazen dereliction of his duties as a lawyer and officer of the court, undermining the rule of law he swore to protect.

When a concerned X user raised two incisive questions - "At what point then would it be strategic, or even prudent, to engage as you suggest?" and "When the political class appears complicit across the aisle, how do citizens and civil society assert agency without reinforcing the same system they seek to question?" - Mpofu's response was chilling: "Poignant observations. These questions must be publicly asked but never answered." Why never answered?

At its heart, the Zanu-PF "2030" proposal is a technical, legal and constitutional matter, rooted in section 95(2)(b) of the Constitution of Zimbabwe (2013), which sets the presidential term of office at five years, aligned with Parliament's lifespan. Extending it demands precise legal clarification on whether this qualifies as a "term-limit provision" under section 328(1), which references the two-term cap in section 91(2). If not, a two-thirds parliamentary vote under section 328(5) may suffice; if so, section 328(7) requires two national referendums.

This is no partisan skirmish in the political gutter - it is a technical constitutional question demanding judicial scrutiny to protect the rule of law from political whims, charlatans, and merchants of violence. For Mpofu, an advocate of Zimbabwe's superior courts, to deride litigation as soiling "the halls of justice" with "grubby hands" is hypocritical, irresponsible, and dangerous. It is oxymoronic for a practicing senior lawyer - who claims to be neither a politician nor an activist - to behave like an overgrown child throwing tantrums, insisting irrationally that a legal matter be resolved through street brawls rather than the courts.

Lawyers exist to guide disputes toward legal remedies, not consign them to chaotic streets. By reframing the issue as purely political and demanding a political solution, Mpofu invites anarchy, erodes institutional trust, and echoes the assaults on civil rights he pretends to condemn. His oath as an officer of the court obligates him to champion legality, not evade it - lest he abets the unravelling of the Constitution.

Zimbabwe deserves better from its legal stewards: not calls to sidestep justice, but an unwavering defence of it. Mpofu's advocacy for a "street brawl" does not merely falter; it betrays the Constitution, the bench, the bar, and the people.

"Zvikauya Tuka": If They Bring It, Insult Them

In response to Obey Shava's prudent advice to fellow lawyers - "To lawyers defending the constitution: Don't fall for Zanu-PF's intelligence gathering operation, disguised as a debate. Resist the urge to fully engage. Exercise strategic silence & keep your best argument private. Save it for the Court. Don't give them a free legal brief." - Mpofu's terse reply was telling: "Thank you Shava. Zvikauya tuka. Vanhu vepi!" (translating to "If they bring it, insult them. Where are the people!").

This retort exposes Mpofu's abandonment of rationality, fair play and the legal profession's mandate to uphold the rule of law. As a senior officer of the court, he should exalt the Constitution as the supreme arbiter of power. Instead, he rejects Shava's call for strategic restraint and courtroom resolve, favouring crude insults over principled adjudication. By downgrading a core constitutional issue - anchored in sections 95(2)(b) and 328 - to a partisan fray, Mpofu undermines the justice system he is sworn to safeguard. Urging street confrontations over judicial precision not only invites chaos but forsakes his ethical duties, trading the gavel for the mob's roar and leaving Zimbabwe's national interest compromised.
Mpofu's reckless stance, distilled from his X posts, rests on four toxic pillars:

· Treat the term extension as a mere "political issue" and "dirty dog fight."
· Insult anyone who raises it.
· Don't take it to court.
· Smear those who go to court - and the judges who hear it.

Vicious Political Assault on Fuzwayo, Ibhetshu LikaZulu, and Their Lawyer
Mpofu, sworn to uphold justice, has descended into unprofessional depths with his political assault on Mbuso Fuzwayo, Ibhetshu LikaZulu, and their lawyer, Nqobani Sithole. In a post rife with unsubstantiated insinuations of hatred, Mpofu alleges a conspiracy of "fraudulently recruiting Ndebeles" to spearhead a "false challenge" to the 2030 agenda, calling it a "cruel low" linked to the "Tshabangu scheme" and the work of "charlatans." 

This transcends commentary; it is a smear that stifles freedoms of speech, association, and conscience, maligns a professional colleague, and erodes the legal profession's ethical foundation. The Law Society of Zimbabwe's code demands civility, respect, and candour, even in disagreement, while avoiding prejudice to justice or intimidation of litigants. Mpofu violates this by labelling Sithole as "Tshabangu's lawyer." Since when are lawyers defined by one client? Mpofu himself resents being called "Chamisa's lawyer," yet he denies others the same professional courtesy - what's good for the goose is evidently not for the gander. Labelling Sithole this way distorts his decade-long human rights work for Ibhetshu LikaZulu, including interdicting the Zimbabwe Republic Police from blocking Gukurahundi commemorations in 2016, challenging illegal Gukurahundi reburials in 2021, and representing Tawanda Muchehiwa that year. Mpofu's attacks infringe on attorney-client privilege and undermine the constitutional right to legal representation of choice under section 70(1)(d) of the Constitution, potentially constituting harassment and compromising legal integrity.

Scandalizing the Judiciary
As an esteemed advocate, Mpofu is bound to preserve the judiciary's sanctity with ethical rigour. Yet his X posts betray this duty, delving into "bizarre daydreams" that have been weaponized by social media outlets and influencers to scandalize the judiciary - the very institution he vows to defend. By framing the presidential term extension - a constitutional crux under section 95(2)(b) - as a "political issue" and "dirty dog fight," he shirks his role, steering the public toward violent clashes instead of judicial paths. His shameless call to "insult" 2030 supporters, combined with his cryptic urgings to pose questions "publicly but never answered," borders on incitement, fraying faith in legal mechanisms and inviting vigilante disorder.

Compounding this are inflammatory echoes from Hopewell Chin'ono) and NewsHawks, done under the guise of investigative journalism to amplify baseless claims with zero evidence. Mpofu's 5 November 2025, "bizarre daydream" post - filled with veiled accusations of sham filings, imaginary bribes, and orchestration - ignited this fire, swiftly reposted with apparent approval by Hopewell Chin'ono and echoed in NewsHawks's 6 November 2025 reports, forging a malicious nexus.

Here is Hopewell Chin'ono's astonishing 4 November 2025, claim about his alleged sources and the implications for Fuzwayo and Ibhetshu's Constitutional Court application, reproduced in full for its scandalous weight:

"I have been made aware by judicial sources of allegations that two Bulawayo-based applicants have been identified to file a constitutional application intended to be dismissed in order to advance the 2030 agenda. They are Mbuso Fuzwayo as the first applicant and Ibhetshu Likazulu as the second applicant.

My judicial sources said that the application was prepared by a young advocate and that the advocate is connected to one Itayi Ndudzo. Itayi Ndudzo is the current Minister of State for Provincial Affairs and Devolution for Mashonaland East and a Zanu-PF member of parliament. The same province where President Mnangagwa's 2030 cheer leader Daniel Garwe is the ZANUPF Chairman. The basis of this application is to go to court and argue that 2030 is illegal. However, the real intention is not to have the court agree with that position, but rather to have the court dismiss the application. Once the court dismisses it, that dismissal becomes a legal precedent establishing that 2030 can lawfully go ahead. In other words, they are deliberately applying for something opposite to what they truly want in order to create a judicial record supporting their political agenda."

To see the malicious nexus, compare this with NewsHawks's claims on the same matter:

"A major political scandal with potential far-reaching consequences is brewing in local Zimbabwean politics amid revelations that Zanu-PF senior officials and some judges are colluding to facilitate President Emmerson Mnangagwa's term unlawful extension amid a growing threat to the country's constitutional order and internal stability. The NewsHawks has spoken to many political and judicial sources who confirm Zanu-PF leaders, including ministers, political strategists and legal bureaucrats, are fast-moving behind the scenes to fast-track the treacherous deal."

https://x.com/NewsHawksLive/status/1986289570875412964?s=20
Revealingly, both Hopewell Chin'ono and NewsHawks "separately" claimed their inflammatory coverage was leaked by "judicial sources," offering no evidence, whatsoever. The term "judicial" is inseparable from "judiciary," it denotes the system of courts and judges. Thus, the public is asked to believe judges or court officials leaked an un-finalised and unfiled application, which was not before them.

These claims are blatant and harmful fabrications; the true source was  of course Mpofu himself, with little left to imagination. Fortuitously,  NewsHawks inadvertently exposed this by extensively quoting Mpofu's "bizarre daydream" in a telling manner, even for the uninitiated:

"A senior lawyer said: ‘This is a sinister political plot. We can't have politicians and judges corruptly colluding to undermine the constitution for short-term individual political and monetary benefits. It's an attack on the constitution, rule of law and democracy. It's treacherous.'

There's no need for a tsikamutanda or rocket scientist to unravel the identity of the "senior lawyer", NewsHawks's giveaway was immediate and complete:

"Prominent lawyer Advocate Thabani Mpofu has joined the fray. He posted on Twitter (X): "I took a power nap this afternoon and had a bizarre dream. In it, More-Precision Engineering tried to file a flawed application in the Constitutional Court that was rejected on technical grounds. At the same time a good friend in the EAST African city of Dodoma was pushing people to find an applicant to bring a case in the chief's court, amid loud rumours that he'd been paid US$3 million. Afternoon naps really do produce the strangest dreams; crazy, crazy stuff." Mpofu appeared to insinuate that an application circulating on social media by one Moreprecision Muzadzi is part of the political subterfuge. The draft application seeks to challenge Mnangagwa's 2030 bid on the surface of it, but is seen as part of a deceptive proxy manoeuvre to get the ConCourt dismiss it to help Zanu-PF in the process. It was not clear whom Mpofu was referring to when he said his "good friend" in Dodoma, Tanzania's administrative capital, was behind the manoeuvres."

It is incredulous that an "investigative" outlet like NewsHawks would collude with an award-winning journalist Hopewell Chin'ono to fabricate non-existent "judicial sources," relying on Mpofu's "bizarre daydream" to bolster self-evident lies. This is scandalous and potentially criminal. Given the vilification of judges, it would be a dereliction for the Judicial Service Commission to ignore this opprobrium.

These fabrications erode trust, portraying the bench as political puppets and breeding contempt. This echo chamber, where Mpofu's bizarre hints fuel misinformation, amounts to judicial scandalization. By igniting or endorsing it, Mpofu abets the vilification of judges as corrupt, without offering even a shred of evidence, all while decrying court involvement. His hypocrisy mocks his oath: he smears good-faith litigants as proxies and implies judicial bias - even as NewsHawks concedes Fuzwayo and Ibhetshu's application is "genuine." This threatens judicial independence, deters genuine justice-seekers, and invites extralegal backlash.

In a nation with fragile institutions, such as Zimbabwe, Mpofu's recklessness favours spectacles over restraint, tarnishing the judiciary he must protect. True officers of the court elevate the law; they do not drag it through the mud of unproven slander.

Gaslighting Matabeleland
Mpofu's 5 November 2025, claim that Zanu-PF is "fraudulently recruiting Ndebeles" for an alleged sham court challenge exemplifies tribal gaslighting, weaponizing ethnicity to discredit a valid constitutional bid while reopening historical wounds. In his unsubstantiated tirade, he asserts: "A particularly disturbing aspect of the Fuzwayo and Ibhetshu Likazulu saga is the deliberate attempt to put an entire ethnic group in the line of fire. Fraudulently recruiting Ndebeles - who have real historical grievances with ED - to front a false challenge to the 2030 agenda is a cruel low." He links it to the "Tshabangu scheme," branding it charlatanry.

By depicting Matabeleland activists Fuzwayo and Ibhetshu - respected Ndebeles with authentic grievances - as pawns in an ethnic conspiracy, Mpofu exploits the region's history and trauma of marginalization and Gukurahundi atrocities for corrupt ends. Without evidence, he casts an entire ethnic community as dupes or sell-outs, fanning divisions and perpetuating stereotypes of Ndebele manipulability or disloyalty.

This is not advocacy but demagoguery from a senior practicing lawyer obligated to professionalism and ethics, not exposing litigants and their counsel to ridicule, demonization, stigmatization, and harm. Amplified by outlets like Nehanda Radio (nehandaradio.com /2025/11/06/mpofu-slams-ndebele-recruitment-in-mnangagwas-2030-agenda-court-s), his baseless "fraudulent Ndebele recruitment" allegations reduce the Constitutional Court application to tribal intrigue, implying Matabeleland residents are Zanu-PF marionettes. Why deem Ibhetshu's ties suspect? It is a ploy: invoke ethnic pain to delegitimize without proof. This is unacceptable and objectionable.

The hypocrisy burns - Mpofu, who calls the extension "political," now vilifies those seeking judicial clarity on a constitutional question, to fulfill his own warped political prophecy. As an officer of the court, his duty is to uphold law, not fracture society with tribal jabs and fabrications that mimic the authoritarianism he claims to oppose. Poignantly, this betrays Gukurahundi victims or survivors, who deserve justice, not tokenization in senseless feuds. Mpofu's words expose not charlatans, but his willingness to wield historical agony of the people of Matabeleland as a political weapon.

Advocate Mpofu's Rank Hypocrisy
In glaring hypocrisy, Mpofu - lead advocate in the 2017 High Court case (HC 10820/17) that mutilated the Constitution by sanctioning the military coup - now denounces Fuzwayo and Ibhetshu's 2025 bid, via Sithole Law Chambers, as a "sham" subversion. That secretive 2017 case yielded a controversial consent order deeming the Zimbabwe Defence Forces' intervention "constitutionally permissible" under section 212 of the Constitution, effectively blessing a coup. It twisted the Constitution to legitimize extralegal power grabs, empowering unelected forces to "arrest" executive lapses - criticised for eviscerating constitutional democracy and entrenching military influence.

Contrast this with Fuzwayo and Ibhetshu's application, which probes section 95(2)(b) as a potential term-limit provision under section 328(1), possibly requiring a referendum per section 328(7). It upholds safeguards against overreach, using courts of law as intended - not for insults, brawls, or smears.

Mpofu's 2017 collusion, shielded from scrutiny, disqualifies him from assailing judicial approaches. Where his case eroded integrity for the transfer of political power, this one preserves it. His attacks - bolstered by Hopewell Chinono and NewsHawks's unproven "judicial collusion" claims - reveal vendettas over law. If 2017 mutilated the Constitution, Mpofu's current posture desecrates it anew.

Conclusion: A Betrayal Cloaked in Advocacy
In Zimbabwe's shadowed political corridors, where the Constitution dangles by threads of fragile hope, Thabani Mpofu's inflammatory words emerge not as beacons of justice but as daggers aimed at its heart. Sworn to defend the law's sanctity, he unleashes invectives, tribal barbs, and judicial scorn, transforming his respectable advocate's robe into a cloak for hypocrisy and division. By urging insults over adjudication, brawls over courts, and innuendo over evidence, Mpofu does not safeguard the republic - he auctions its soul, leaving historical wounds in Matabeleland festering and the judiciary echoing distrust. Yet in this betrayal rings a clarion call: Zimbabwe's true guardians must rise, not with mob clamour, but with justice's unyielding shield, forging a nation where law triumphs over charlatans.

The malicious targeting of Mbuso Fuzwayo and Ibhetshu LikaZulu is particularly troubling. No individual or organization has sustained focus on resolving Gukurahundi atrocities like they have. One need not endorse their application to respect their indefatigable service to community and country. This explains the outrage across Matabeleland over their vilification.
For the record, Fuzwayo and Ibhetshu have been targeted by counterrevolutionary "bambazonke" elements tied to Harare for two reasons.

First, petty "first-mover" jealousies: Ibhetshu outpaced Harare's usual suspects - who cling to the warped notion that Harare is Zimbabwe and Zimbabwe is Harare - by filing a solid Constitutional Court application. Nothing in it invites dismissal on technicalities; claims otherwise are baseless.

In this vein, assertions by figures like Musa Kika that the application is premature are political, not legal. Section 85(1)(a) of the Constitution states: "any person acting in their own interests…is entitled to approach a court, alleging that a fundamental right or freedom enshrined in this Chapter [The Declaration of Rights] has been, is being or is likely to be infringed…". The Constitution does not require infringement before action. The idea that one must suffer harm before seeking protection has no constitutional basis. One can only wonder where this nonsense that Fuzwayo and Ibhetshu's application is "premature" is coming from.

Who in Harare presumes to dictate which court applications, on what issues, and when? Mpofu seeks a dangerous precedent that right-thinking, law-abiding people must resist.
Second, across Matabeleland, Ibhetshu LikaZulu is seen as maliciously targeted by foes of its unparalleled work for needy persons and communities in the region and the Midlands, especially on Gukurahundi. The flippancy and hatred in this targeting have been extreme and shameful!