Temba Mliswa defends Wicknell Chivayo US$3.6 million donation before angry Zanu PF Youth League

Former Norton Member of Parliament Temba Mliswa has launched a scathing attack on the Zanu PF Youth League Tuesday morning, dismissing its widely circulated statement opposing businessman Wicknell Chivayo’s reported intention to donate US$3.6 million to Parliament as nothing more than factional posturing driven by political ambition.

The Youth League, in a statement inserted by Deputy Secretary for Youth Affairs Hon. John Paradza, urged Parliament to reject the proposed donation, arguing it risked compromising the integrity of the legislature and appeared “transactional.” The League cited its loyalty to President Emmerson Mnangagwa and warned against any attempt to bring Parliament into disrepute.

But Mliswa was having none of it.

“Oh so the Youth League can talk?” the outspoken former legislator wrote, setting the tone for a withering broadside. He accused the organisation of selective outrage, noting it had remained conspicuously silent during what he described as far more serious and explicit destabilisation of the ruling party.

“As the vanguard of the party it has been impotent in the past while the party was being seriously destabilised in explicit ways,” Mliswa said. “It had opportunities to justify its existence and duty but dismally failed.”

He was particularly scornful of the League wading into what he characterised as speculation, pointing out that Chivayo had not yet made any formal donation.

“Chivayo has not even donated the said money yet and the Youth League is already throwing tantrums,” he said.

Mliswa directed his sharpest criticism at what he believes is the Youth League’s true motivation — factionalism centred around the Vice President. Without explicitly naming VP Constantino Chiwenga, Mliswa appeared to allude to tensions within ZANU-PF’s upper echelons.

“Why was it silent when party stability was being upended and the VP was plainly undermining his superior the President in the PB?” he demanded. “Either the Youth League is now totally a factional arm of the VP or mutori mbwende henyu [you are your own undoing].”

He also questioned the need for the Youth League to speak at all on parliamentary matters, noting that Parliament is led by Speaker Jacob Mudenda, who also serves as the party’s Secretary General.

“Why not allow Parliament to address its own matters in due time as it is run by capable leaders like Hon Mudenda who is also Secretary General of the party, instead of jumping the gun,” Mliswa said.

The former MP reserved rare praise for Youth League member Kandishaya, whom he described as one of the few members displaying the “gravitas” befitting the organisation, while declaring the current crop “the worst Youth League in a long time.”

He also paid tribute to party heavyweights Cde Victor Matemadanda Matuke and Mai Oppah Muchinguri, suggesting it fell to senior figures rather than the Youth League to defend the President’s standing.

*Background on what the Youth League said*

The Youth League statement, which was widely shared on social media ahead of Mliswa’s response, acknowledged Chivayo’s philanthropic activities but drew a firm line at any donation directed at a State institution.

“Parliament is the backbone of democracy, where the desires, needs and aspirations of the Zimbabwean people are turned into laws, oversight and accountability,” the statement read, adding that MPs are already supported through the Constituency Development Fund and that the government under President Mnangagwa has “adequate capacity to support its programmes.”

The League urged Parliament to reject the donation outright and called on MPs to “take a stand against any attempt to bring the Parliament of Zimbabwe into disrepute.”

As of the time of publishing, neither Parliament nor Chivayo’s office had issued an official response to either the Youth League statement or Mliswa’s remarks. The proposed donation, described as still at the level of social media reports, has nonetheless ignited a fierce intra-party debate about the boundaries between private philanthropy, political influence, and institutional independence. *_-ZimEye_*