Armed Raid on Editor’s Home Highlights Blame-Shifting Amid Military Control of Mnangagwa ‘Rest in Peace’ Error

By Farai D Hove | ZimEye | In a dramatic and unsettling development, armed men raided the home of prominent editor Guthrie Munyuki in the early hours of the morning, allegedly in connection with an editorial mistake that caused a national stir. The error, which appeared in a Sunday advert featuring President Emmerson Mnangagwa, mistakenly read “Rest in Peace,” leading to immediate fallout and apparent attempts to shift blame. However, closer examination reveals troubling signs of blame-shifting, with the real source of the publication likely lying within the military itself—the Zimbabwe Defence Forces.

Munyuki, who was not home at the time of the 4 a.m. raid, was reportedly targeted by two vehicles filled with armed men, raising serious concerns about press freedom, intimidation, and the accountability of the actors behind the error. The raid appears to be part of a larger effort to pin responsibility on the editorial team, despite clear indications that the advert was published by the Zimbabwe Defence Forces, not the newspaper’s editorial staff.

Loopholes in the Blame-Shifting Narrative

1. Military as the Source of the Advertisement:
   Initial investigations suggest that the advertisement featuring the President was commissioned and produced by the Zimbabwe Defence Forces. The military likely supplied the content directly to the publication. While editorial teams are responsible for fact-checking, it is highly unusual for a newsroom to be held accountable for a state-commissioned advert, particularly one involving such high-ranking officials. This raises a critical question: Why is Munyuki being targeted for content he had little or no control over?
2. Chain of Command in the Publishing Process:
   Advertisements, especially those involving state actors like the Zimbabwe Defence Forces, follow a stringent approval process, which typically bypasses editorial oversight. If the advert was submitted by the military, the approval and final sign-off would have likely come from high-ranking officials within the Defence Forces themselves. The content would have been supplied as “ready-to-publish,” leaving the newspaper with minimal input aside from layout. The focus of the blame, therefore, seems misplaced in this case, as Munyuki’s editorial team would have merely facilitated the publication of state-sanctioned content.
3. Timing and Intimidation:
   The timing of the raid, occurring at 4 a.m., further deepens concerns of state-led intimidation. Sending armed men to Munyuki’s home instead of addressing the error through legal or professional channels suggests that this may be an attempt to scapegoat the editor in order to shift public blame away from the military. This tactic of silencing and intimidating the media is not new in Zimbabwe, and it underscores the precarious nature of press freedom in a state where the military holds significant influence over national narratives.
4. Selective Accountability:
   If the Zimbabwe Defence Forces were the true source of the error, it begs the question: Why are they not being held accountable? The military has thus far escaped any public scrutiny for its role in the production and dissemination of the advert. Instead, attention has been diverted toward the editorial team, further suggesting an orchestrated effort to deflect responsibility away from the military establishment.
5. The Role of Publishers vs. Editors:
   In most journalistic institutions, the responsibility for advertisements falls squarely on the shoulders of the publishers or the clients (in this case, the military). Editors typically focus on news content and not commercial or commissioned material. The distinction between editorial oversight and publisher responsibility is being deliberately blurred in this case, making it easier to deflect blame from the military and target Munyuki as a convenient scapegoat.

Is It Fair to Blame Munyuki?

The armed raid on Munyuki’s home raises serious ethical concerns. Targeting an editor for an error in a military-sponsored advert demonstrates a profound misunderstanding—or perhaps a deliberate manipulation—of how media institutions function. The military’s failure to take responsibility for the error, and the state’s quickness to point fingers at the editorial team, reflects a deeper issue of control and power dynamics in Zimbabwean media.

This is not simply a case of an unfortunate editorial mistake. It appears to be a calculated effort to scapegoat the media while shielding the true perpetrators—those within the Zimbabwe Defence Forces who were responsible for producing and distributing the advert in the first place. By shifting the blame onto Munyuki, the state avoids public embarrassment and deflects attention from the deeper systemic issues that plague Zimbabwe’s government-media relationship.

The Broader Implications

This incident is emblematic of the challenges faced by the press in Zimbabwe. When mistakes occur, especially involving state actors, it is often the media that bears the brunt of the fallout, even when they are not directly responsible. The fact that Munyuki’s home was raided at gunpoint illustrates the lengths to which the state will go to protect its image and silence dissent.

In the end, Munyuki appears to be a victim of an overreaching state apparatus that is more concerned with maintaining control over the national narrative than upholding truth or accountability. The real culprits—those within the military—remain untouchable, protected by a system that prioritizes loyalty and suppression over transparency and justice.

The raid on Guthrie Munyuki’s home is a chilling reminder of the dangers faced by journalists in Zimbabwe. The error in the Mnangagwa advert, likely caused by the Zimbabwe Defence Forces, has been twisted into a blame game that unfairly targets the press. It is crucial for the public, legal systems, and international bodies to scrutinize such incidents closely, ensuring that the real sources of these errors are held accountable, rather than allowing innocent parties to suffer the consequences of politically motivated scapegoating.