By Munacho Gwamanda- Opposition leader Nelson Chamisa has dismissed claims of his involvement in a planned nationwide protest on March 31, 2025, while signalling openness to coalition talks with progressive forces.
The mass demonstration, spearheaded by exiled former ZANU PF Central Committee member Blessed Runesu Geza, aims to oppose attempts by President Emmerson Mnangagwa’s loyalists to extend his final term from 2028 to 2030.
Geza, a former intelligence operative now wanted by police for alleged theft and other crimes, has called for mass action against Mnangagwa’s government.
He alleges that Chamisa, alongside former Finance Minister Tendai Biti and former MP Job Sikhala, is backing the protests to hasten Mnangagwa’s removal from power.
However, Chamisa swiftly rejected these assertions, emphasizing his non-involvement. Taking to social media, he clarified:
“I want to clarify that my door is always open to speak with anyone who reaches out to me for constructive conversations and nation-building, but I have not been involved in recent dialogues with anyone. I do not want to be made the focal point of things that have nothing to do with me.”
Despite Chamisa’s denial, Geza insists that key opposition figures, including Chamisa, Sikhala, Biti, Komichi, and Mwonzora, have engaged in talks and support Vice President Constantino Chiwenga as an alternative to Mnangagwa.
Chamisa’s political trajectory underscores his resilience in Zimbabwean politics.
Since assuming opposition leadership after Morgan Tsvangirai’s death in 2018, he has weathered betrayals, state repression, and the systematic dismantling of his party.
Despite these challenges, he maintains widespread grassroots support, making him a pivotal figure in the nation’s political landscape.
His refusal to align with Geza’s protest movement suggests a strategic recalibration. Chamisa appears keen to avoid the pitfalls of 2017, when opposition figures inadvertently lent legitimacy to a military coup that replaced Robert Mugabe with Mnangagwa—only to realize later that the change was merely a reshuffling of the ruling elite.
Political analysts caution that Chamisa must tread carefully. While his influence as a kingmaker offers leverage, aligning with discontented ZANU PF factions—especially those with intelligence and military ties—poses significant risks.
The opposition’s past experience with war veterans and military-backed transitions serves as a warning: disgruntled ruling party elements may be more interested in using the opposition for their own power struggles rather than pursuing genuine democratic reforms.
As Zimbabwe’s political tensions escalate, Chamisa’s stance reflects a learned caution—one that prioritizes long-term democratic change over short-term alliances with opportunistic actors within the ruling establishment.