MPs who accept Chivayo's offer must face graft charges

By now, the controversy surrounding businessman Wicknell Chivayo's proposed US$3.6 million payment to Zimbabwe's parliamentarians has moved beyond politics. It is now a legal question.

Can Members of Parliament legally accept US$10,000 each from a private businessman? Under Zimbabwean law, the answer is a clear no—particularly if the money is intended to influence how MPs conduct themselves in Parliament.

The clearest prohibition is found in the Criminal Law (Codification and Reform) Act [Chapter 9:23]. Section 170 on bribery makes it a criminal offence for any public officer or "agent" to receive a gift, reward or benefit in exchange for acting in a particular way in relation to their official duties.

Members of Parliament are public officers. Their duties include voting, debating Bills, supporting motions and exercising oversight over government. If an MP accepts money where there is a "real risk or possibility" that the payment is intended to influence those duties, that may amount to bribery. The offence carries penalties of fines and imprisonment.

The Privileges, Immunities and Powers of Parliament Act [Chapter 2:08] is even more direct. Section 18 states:

"No member shall accept or receive, directly or indirectly, any fee, compensation, gift or reward for or in respect of the promotion of or opposition to any Bill, petition, resolution, motion or other matter submitted to Parliament."

This provision explicitly bars MPs from accepting gifts or rewards connected to parliamentary business. If Parliament is considering constitutional amendments, a presidential term extension, budget votes or any other contentious measure, a US$10,000 payment to each MP would likely be viewed as a prohibited reward.

The same Act also classifies the offering or accepting of a bribe to influence an MP's conduct as a parliamentary offence. MPs who accept such payments may face not only criminal prosecution but also parliamentary sanctions, including repayment of the money.

Zimbabwe's Code of Conduct and Ethics for Members of Parliament reinforces this position. MPs must act in the public interest and avoid placing themselves under any financial obligation to individuals or organisations that could influence their decisions.

The Code states that a Member "must not promote any matter in Parliament in return for payment." It also requires disclosure of significant gifts and financial interests. Even if the payment is framed as "constituency support" or "development assistance," its scale and source would almost certainly trigger scrutiny and mandatory disclosure.

The argument that the money is not tied to any specific vote may not be sufficient. In corruption cases, courts consider not only explicit agreements but also whether the circumstances create an appearance of obligation.

A US$10,000 payment to every MP by a politically connected businessman, at a time of major political debate, is unlikely to be seen as an innocent gesture. A court or parliamentary committee could reasonably conclude that such payments create precisely the kind of influence the law seeks to prevent.

The responsibility now lies with the Clerk of Parliament, Kennedy Chokuda, and the Speaker. They must determine whether Parliament will enforce its own laws or allow a dangerous precedent—where private money shapes legislative decisions.

If any MP chooses to accept the payment despite these clear legal and ethical prohibitions, that decision should not go unchallenged. Such conduct can be reported to the Zimbabwe Anti-Corruption Commission as a suspected criminal offence. Zimbabwe's anti-corruption framework exists for this purpose and must be enforced without fear or favour.