“Suckur was unfair to Chamisa” writes Hopewell Chin’ono.

I have finally watched the BBC’s Hard Talk interview with Nelson Chamisa.

I hardly comment on colleagues and their work but I take exception on this occasion.
I speak here as a British trained journalist whose training includes working at the BBC.

Stephen Sucker was unfair to Nelson Chamisa. He would never speak like that to Donald Trump and yet journalism requires fairness regardless of one’s station in life.

Stephen Suckur peddled a lot of myths and gossip which is embarrassing for a journalist of his stature and embarrassing for an organization like the BBC.

Nelson Chamisa was not prepared for the interview but that did not warrant a disrespectful posture by Suckur.

Suckur has clearly made up his mind on the next general election’s result, that is his own right.

But he shouldn’t think that it is good journalism to use a candidate or interviewee to validate his already held views which in my opinion were not rooted in facts but scurrilous gossip.

Making declaratory statements about the election outcome to me is not only wrong without explaining why, it brings into question the impartiality of the journalist and the organization he represents.

Nelson was a victim of terrible research on the part of the program’s producers. He was also a victim of his own lack of preparedness.

He should have been sharper, structured and simple. Petina Gappah was right when she said that Wamba shouldn’t have agreed to do the interview in the first place.
She was also right that he should keep it simple.

As I said earlier, Nero can be judged on this one if his adversaries are also subjected to the same program format which I know they won’t agree to.

Nelson Chamisa’s team must engage with the international community because his team has clearly lost that battle with the Brits.

The BBC is part of the British establishment so it is not surprising that it has followed the lead of its government.

British journalists talk to their ambassadors or foreign office especially before such a big interview.

The insights they get will invariably shape the nature and outcome of their journalistic enterprise.

Chamisa must stop his team members like Tendai Biti from attacking the British ambassador on social media.

Those cheap attacks do nothing but pull back their agenda retrogressively.
Emmerson Mnangagwa has been building his relationship with the British since around 2014 through his business and industry surrogates.

Nelson has built a bad reputation of not taking western diplomats seriously. These are the people who will define whether the election is credible or not.

His HardTalk experience is a result of not taking care of these relationships. He should chose if he wants to be an island or join the rest of the world by engaging with their envoys in Harare.

Currently those relationships are broken. I have heard the Stephen Suckur sentiments expressed on many occasions in diplomatic compounds!

Wamba must take note of advice and what people are saying.

Emmerson Mnangagwa is taking note of what people are saying and is talking to everyone regardless of the power he has.

Those engagements have led to the confidence that many including Stephen Suckur now have in an Emmerson Mnangagwa victory and presidency out of a credible election.

That confidence should however not extend to insulting his guests on HardTalk.

Nelson was extremely restrained, Suckur could never have spoken like that to Julius Malema.

HardTalk does not mean insults and condescending attitudes. I simply means tough questions asked in a fair and respectful manner.

The architect of this format Sir Robin Day would probably turn in his grave at how Stephen Suckur conducted the interview.

Not even veteran inquisitors like Jeremy Paxman or John Humphreys would use words like NONSENSE