NEWS ANALYSIS: Is Blessed Geza Just Another Face of ZANU-PF? Tafi Mhaka’s Stark Warning Divides Zimbabweans
April 20, 2025
As political tensions in Zimbabwe hit boiling point, a fierce debate has erupted over the role and true intentions of anti-corruption crusader Blessed Geza. While many hail him as a fearless reformer challenging President Emmerson Mnangagwa’s crumbling regime, others, like political analyst and commentator Tafi Mhaka, have sounded the alarm — accusing Geza of being a Trojan horse for the very ZANU-PF machinery he claims to oppose.
https://x.com/tafimhaka/status/1913947256694190253?s=46
In a sharply worded thread that has since gone viral, Mhaka paints Geza not as a revolutionary, but as a “conduit” for ZANU-PF’s survival strategy. Mhaka claims Geza is helping to preserve the “chefs” — a colloquial reference to ZANU-PF elites — who presided over decades of mass violence, enforced disappearances, election fraud, and economic decay. “He is in fact helping the faceless ZANU-PF chefs, the immoral purveyors of widespread poverty and destruction,” Mhaka wrote.
Mhaka’s critique invokes painful national memories: Gukurahundi massacres, the abduction of Itai Dzamara, and the post-election killings of August 1, 2018. In his view, Geza is merely attempting to recycle the same authoritarian order with new branding.
Divided Reactions: A Nation in Debate
The post sparked passionate debate across Zimbabwean social media. One user, The_Afrikan (@PgMukwara), pushed back hard against Mhaka’s framing, accusing him of being out of touch with the current generational demands. “We are rejecting the establishment of a dynasty,” he posted in Shona-infused English, urging critics to “leave Geza alone.”
Others echoed Mhaka’s skepticism. “No to Mnangagwa. No to Geza. And no to Chiwenga. They are all ZANU-PF!” Mhaka replied in a follow-up tweet, calling for a complete break from the ruling party’s legacy—not just a change of faces.
Still, the question “Do we have any option?” posed by another user, @AlexBF…, captures the deep despair among citizens. Even those skeptical of Geza admit there are few viable political alternatives. Ashley Shava offered a pragmatic angle, writing: “If Geza succeeds in removing Mnangagwa, their next leader will require less effort to remove. It will be an advantage to us, the ordinary people.”
The Real Struggle: Reform or Rebranding?
The heart of the debate centers on whether Geza represents a genuine break from the ZANU-PF past, or a repackaged front for elite survival. Mhaka’s argument is that corruption and repression are not just features of individuals like Mnangagwa, but embedded in the DNA of ZANU-PF itself. Therefore, removing one man while keeping the system intact would only prolong the suffering of ordinary Zimbabweans.
Geza’s camp, on the other hand, seems to frame the struggle more as a tactical effort to remove a dysfunctional leader rather than dismantling the party altogether. His recent addresses have avoided directly denouncing ZANU-PF, instead focusing on Mnangagwa’s “inability to function” and calling on MPs to use constitutional powers to impeach him.
Conclusion: The Crossroads Moment
Zimbabwe stands at a political crossroads. With Mnangagwa skipping public appearances and the opposition fractured, figures like Blessed Geza are increasingly occupying the vacuum of resistance. But whether that vacuum will lead to genuine transformation—or merely the rotation of elites—remains uncertain.
Tafi Mhaka’s warning is clear: not every loud voice calling for change is a true revolutionary. As the nation braces for more protests and possible power shifts, Zimbabweans will have to decide what kind of future they want—and whether new leadership without structural reform is change at all.