By A Correspondent | Comment | In Zimbabwe’s volatile political landscape, the opposition typically faces intense struggles and regular setbacks, with party leaders like Nelson Chamisa and Job Sikhala routinely thwarted by the judicial system. However, a peculiar scenario has emerged, where one opposition figure, Fadzayi Mahere, consistently wins court cases, even those involving high-profile public figures and empty defamation claims. Mahere’s victories raise questions about the sincerity of her role as an opposition activist, with suspicions surfacing that her favorable outcomes may be tied to advantages from the very judicial system that frequently targets genuine opposition leaders.

Recently, Mahere secured a victory in a defamation case against lawyer and author Petina Gappah. The case dates back to a 2018 Twitter dispute, in which Gappah made comments about Mahere’s university admissions and personal life. Mahere sued Gappah for US$1 million, claiming reputational damage. After court deliberations, Justice Joseph Mafusire reduced the damages from US$1 million to US$18,000 but upheld the claim that Gappah’s statements were defamatory. Mahere’s legal team has since pursued Gappah’s assets, including personal items like a BMW and household appliances, in an effort to recover the awarded amount.

While Mahere’s defamation claim may appear justified on the surface, many have noted that Gappah’s statements largely reiterated allegations that had already circulated in public discourse, and some were published by individuals close to Mahere herself.

This has led critics to argue that Mahere’s pursuit of legal action in this instance is more about public posturing than genuine injury. Interestingly, while Mahere wins such high-profile cases with relative ease, Zimbabwe’s most visible opposition leaders remain mired in perpetual court battles that they almost never win, suggesting a pattern that is both unusual and highly suspicious.

Zimbabwe’s justice system has long been criticized for apparent biases in politically sensitive cases, particularly those involving opposition figures. Figures such as Nelson Chamisa and Job Sikhala have endured continuous legal struggles without

resolution, often facing what many perceive as politically motivated charges and rulings that appear aimed at weakening their positions and discouraging dissent. Sikhala, for instance, has been incarcerated multiple times without conviction, with legal decisions that many believe are designed to silence him rather than deliver justice. Meanwhile, Chamisa, leader of the opposition Citizens Coalition for Change (CCC), has encountered numerous legal and administrative obstacles in his attempts to gain traction against the ruling ZANU-PF party.

This disparity in legal outcomes for opposition figures raises questions: how is it that Mahere, a figure aligned with the opposition, can secure such consistent victories while others within her own coalition cannot? Mahere’s legal wins—seemingly untouched by the harsh limitations that often hinder her colleagues—have led to suspicions that she may be benefiting from a preferential relationship with the judiciary, an institution often labeled “corrupt” by critics due to its history of pro-ZANU-PF rulings.

Mahere’s legal success, particularly in her case against Gappah, has sparked debate within opposition circles, with some supporters questioning her role as a true opposition activist. For many, her defamation win feels hollow and strategically timed, especially considering that Gappah’s statements had already circulated within the public domain. Additionally, some point to Mahere’s unusual ability to exert influence over court outcomes—such as her recent ability to pursue Gappah’s civil imprisonment for non-payment—as evidence of possible favoritism.

While it remains speculative, there is a growing sentiment that Mahere’s position may not be as anti-establishment as it appears. Zimbabwe’s opposition supporters are increasingly concerned that Mahere’s wins are symptomatic of a deeper alignment, one where she might act as a controlled opposition figure who enjoys privileges and outcomes denied to genuine dissidents. This has left some questioning if her victories serve not just her interests, but potentially those of a faction within the ruling elite that finds her “opposition” status convenient.

Zimbabwe’s judiciary has long been under scrutiny for selectively applying the law, and Mahere’s consistent wins serve to underscore the deep-rooted suspicions of systemic bias. For many observers, her victories reveal a troubling trend: in a system where genuine opposition leaders are punished, Mahere’s success seems an anomaly. It suggests that the judiciary may be selectively “just” in cases where outcomes do not threaten the status quo.

In a country where opposition voices face daily repression, Mahere’s favorable court rulings have created confusion and suspicion among genuine opposition supporters. They point to the numerous hurdles faced by leaders like Chamisa and Sikhala as evidence of a system that works against real change-makers and, instead, props up those who perform the role of opposition without challenging the status quo.

The peculiar case of Fadzayi Mahere’s court victories, particularly her defamation suit against Petina Gappah, highlights a troubling inconsistency in Zimbabwe’s justice system. For many opposition supporters, her success symbolizes not justice but preferential treatment in a system otherwise rigged against those who pose a real challenge to the government. While she continues to wear the mantle of an opposition leader, Mahere’s wins and apparent influence within Zimbabwe’s judicial corridors cast doubt on the authenticity of her role. As long as genuine opposition figures like Chamisa and Sikhala face persecution without reprieve, Mahere’s “victories” will remain a curious case of selective justice in a landscape where true dissenters are stifled, not celebrated.