Moyo says Geza a ‘shameless amateur’ who ‘advertises’ plans to overthrow Mnangagwa

By Staff Reporter

Exiled former cabinet minister and Zanu PF politburo member Jonathan Moyo has described Blessed Geza as a malcontent and an “amateur” who “advertises” his intentions to overthrow President Emmerson Mnangagwa’s government.

In strongly worded statement in which he directed insult at those mocking him for his famous denials of what was then a looming coup back in 2017, Moyo further defended Nick Mangwana who has contemptuously dismissed the possible impact of Geza’s calls for Mnangagwa’s ouster.

On the eve of the November 2017 coup that dislodged Robert Mugabe, Moyo, a close ally to the now late Zimbabwe ruler, posted a statement that was dismissive of the coup threat.

“Kungovukura vukura ini zete kuvata zvangu!” Moyo wrote in Shona in a statement which was dismissive of those who foresaw the end of Mugabe’s rule and the collateral damage to the former leader’s allies.

Fast track to 2025, Geza, a former intelligence officer and war veteran, has emerged to issue similar threats at the Mnangagwa government, with some predicting a repeat of 2017.

Geza, a fierce backer of Vice President Constantino Chiwenga’s presidential ambitions, called for an “uprising” against Mnangagwa March 31. The planned uprising however turned into a stayaway for many who shut their businesses on the day and stayed at home on Monday.

Mangwana, likewise, has made the famous taunts at those seeking to overthrow Mnangagwa, something that has seen parallels drawn with Moyo’s so-called “Zete moment”.

Posting on Twitter, Moyo took umbrage with the statements, saying his situation was far different with the current one.

In drawing comparisons, Moyo likened Geza to “malcontents who seek to overthrow the government of the day and who shamelessly and amateurishly advertise their intention.”

READ FULL STATEMENT BELOW:

Dear Dunderheads & Malcontents,

While it is in the nature of dunderheads and malcontents to compare oranges with apples, the comparison is always exhausting not least because it is, by definition, senseless and invariably leads to meaningless outcomes based on fantasies.

In light of the mindless taunts and mockery of some targeted government and Zanu PF officials, especially Nick Mangwana, that they should “learn” from the “zete moment” I shared in these streets on 13 November 2017, there are four things that dunderheads and malcontents fantasizing about tomorrow 31 March 2025 clearly don’t understand.

Firstly, in 2017, there was no one who had foreseen and who had privately as well as publicly foretold in bold detail the military situation that unfolded from 13 November 2017 to 28 November 2017 as or better than this writer, including on this Handle in these streets, and particularly through a widely distributed documentary whose contents have withstood the test of time, which was first presented to the Zanu PF politburo in July 2017, well ahead of the historic events of November 2017.

In the circumstances, those who know better would be aware that the “zete moment’ tweet, which was posted in these streets from the office at work and not from the bedroom, was propaganda tweeted to give desperate cover for various exit plans that were being considered to jump the border, as soon as possible.

This was because by that time on 13 November 2017 it was clear even to fools that some military action – whose extent was not known – was in fact underway, and that some targeted individuals who definitely included this writer were by then under some surveillance of one sort or another. Playing the “zete kuvata” fool was an attempted decoy, even if feeble, and not an expression of blissful ignorance of what was actually going on.

Many dunderheads and malcontents have a lot to learn about politics. In politics, many things that are said are not what they seem to mean or to be.

Secondly, many dunderheads and malcontents keep mocking public officials like Nick Mangwana with nonsensical taunts that they should be very careful and should “learn” from the “zete moment’ referred to above, and my experience since then.

To begin with, only dunderheads and malcontents find it useful to repeatedly use a solitary tweet as a basis of some serious warning to anyone about anything.

One swallow does not make a summer. A credible warning would have to be based on several or many examples; not on only one bad example which, to make it worse, happens to be irrelevant.

It is common cause, for example, that Nick Mangwana, the permanent secretary in the Ministry of Information, Publicity and Broadcasting, is a senior civil servant.

I was not a civil servant in government during the time in question; I was a politician, a member of the governing Zanu PF’s politburo. For the record, the only time I was a civil servant in Zimbabwe was for a short stint way back from September 1981 to February 1982 when I worked in the Ministry of Justice as a trademark officer; after which I returned to the University of Southern California for my graduate and doctoral studies that I completed in 1988.

Between 2000 and 2017, I variously worked as a government minister and a member of the Zanu PF politburo, as a politician and not as a civil servant, like Nick Mangwana is.

To compare a civil servant like Nick Mangwana and a politician like me is not insightful at all, it is like comparing oranges with apples. It is therefore utterly foolish, meaningless and futile to ask or challenge a civil servant like Nick Mangwana to take a leaf from a politician like me. The two roles of a politician and a civil servant are substantively and functionally different.

As a senior civil servant who is heading the government’s information portfolio and who is charged with managing it, Nick Mangwana has a professional and ethical obligation to loyally serve and speak for the government of the day. His remit or job is not to speak for opposition politics; or to speak for malcontents who seek to overthrow the government of the day and who shamelessly and amateurishly advertise their intention.

In this connection, it is folly to reduce the leadership or composition of the government of the day to a political faction. The leadership or composition of the government of the day has constitutional and statutory authority, responsibilities, and obligations that political factions do not and cannot have. Full stop.

Anything else is mumbo jumbo.

As for my experience since the “zete moment” tweet, it has nothing to do with Nick Mangwana or anyone else. The experience is entirely mine and mine alone. It so happens that – even though it happened as a result of circumstances of political history and not personal plans – my experience since November 2017 has been the best and most productive time of my life in personal terms. But that is a story for another day.

Thirdly, the notion that history repeats itself or that what happened in 2017 can or will happen today in 2025 – for the same reasons and in the same way it happened 2017 – is a dunderhead idea which can only be purchased by desperate malcontents or people who are downright stupid.

It is a truism which is some 25 centuries or a little over 2,500 years old, apropos the Heraclitean dictum, that “no man ever steps in the same river twice, for it’s not the same river and he is not the same man.” This old-age wisdom has many equivalences in African proverbs.

As such, the notion that history repeats itself or that history should repeat itself is neither a progressive nor a revolutionary idea.

In a widely referenced critical commentary on the cyclical nature of history and human folly – in his 1852 book titled, The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte, which critiqued the French coup of 1851 in which Louis-Napoléon Bonaparte (Napoleon III) seized power – Karl Marx trenchantly wrote that “history repeats itself, first as tragedy, second as farce.”

The clear takeaway from this is that Marx was reflecting on how historical events like the French coup of 1851 and figures such as Napoleon I (the tragedy), are reproduced in a diminished in comical forms by later iterations or imitations, such as Napoleon III (the farce). Similarly, any iteration or imitation of November 2017 in 2025 would be a tragedy.

Progressive or revolutionary socioeconomic transformation or change is of course good and necessary, but an iteration or imitation of history as a tragedy or a farce cannot be progressive or revolutionary; it’s a disaster.

Fourthly, and precautionary speaking, it is better for any authority or any state anywhere in the world to err on the side of total and adequate preparation for any advertised “insurrection” or “uprising”; so as to be able to deal decisively with any eventuality, than to be lackadaisical about it and be found wanting in the event of an unpalatable consequence.

In situations of advertised insurrections or uprisings, the idea must always be to prepare for the worst and hope for the best!