By Shelton Muchena| In Zimbabwe, the recent handover of wheelchairs and vehicles to persons living with disabilities at State House was meant to be a celebration of compassion.

Photographs of recipients smiling as they received new wheelchairs circulated widely, eliciting applause and gratitude. Yet behind the images lies a deeper, more challenging question: when assistance depends on proximity to power, who is left behind?

But they were only three in a country with more than 10% living with disabilities.

For many citizens living with disabilities, particularly in remote rural areas, travelling to Harare is neither easy nor feasible. Limited mobility, scarce transport, and financial constraints mean that centralised donations — however well-intentioned — often serve those who can physically reach the capital, rather than those most in need.

International Lessons in Disability Support

The debate gained momentum on social media under the hashtag #weneedlegs, sparked by activist Torek Shire. His post highlighted that in countries such as the United Kingdom, the United States, Australia, Canada, Germany, and South Africa, organisations provide wheelchairs and other assistive devices without forcing citizens to “beg” for help. He cited the Wheelchair Alliance in the UK, the American Wheelchair Foundation, Wheelchairs for Kids in Australia, Knights of Columbus in Canada, Hardcore Help Foundation in Germany, and Gift of Givers in South Africa.

While these organisations exist, Shire’s observation overlooks a crucial detail: in most of these countries, charity supplements strong government systems. In the UK, wheelchairs are provided through the National Health Service; in the US, Medicaid and state disability programmes form the backbone of support; Germany, Australia, and Canada operate robust national or provincial disability insurance schemes. Even South Africa pairs social grants with civil society organisations. Across these nations, assistance is structured, predictable, and rights-based — not left to chance or proximity.

The Ministerial Question

Into this debate steps a subtle but important question: what is the role of Zimbabwe’s Minister of Youth? Public perception often equates visibility with productivity, but the ministry’s mandate is primarily advocacy, empowerment, and outreach. It is not the statutory distributor of social welfare devices. That responsibility lies with the Department of Disability Affairs, under the Ministry of Public Service, Labour and Social Welfare.

Should the Minister escort beneficiaries to the President to request donations? Or should the correct procedure be followed: a formal letter documenting the need, registered with the ministry, with donations subsequently channelled through the official structures?

Proper procedure is not mere bureaucracy. It ensures accountability, guarantees that resources reach the intended recipients, and safeguards against politicisation. Public visibility can inspire confidence, but governance is measured by outcomes once the cameras have left.

The Mahere–Greatman Exchange

A telling example of procedure in practice emerged when Tongai “Greatman” Gwaze, founder of the Great Men Foundation, publicly requested 20 wheelchairs. Advocate Fadzayi Mahere responded, not with direct provision, but by emphasising institutional accountability. On social media, she wrote:

“If government was implementing a sound Disability Policy, we would not see persons with disabilities on social media begging daily for wheelchairs.”

Her point was clear: urgent need does not replace proper procedure. Donations should be formally documented, registered with the Department of Disability Affairs, and distributed through official channels to ensure equity and traceability.

At the same time, the Vice-President’s wife quietly donated 20 wheelchairs and US$2,000, moving tangible support into the hands of communities. While effective, such private acts underscore that humanitarian gestures, however impactful, cannot substitute systemic responsibility.

In this episode, all three actors were “right” in different ways. Greatman highlighted urgent need. Mahere advocated for procedure, legality, and equity. The Vice-President’s wife acted compassionately and effectively, though ideally within the formal framework.

Building Systems, Not Spectacles

The lesson is profound: true dignity lies not in receiving aid at the seat of power, but in never needing to approach it at all. Zimbabwe’s National Disability Policy provides a roadmap for institutional delivery:

Donations of assistive devices must be registered with the Department of Disability Affairs.

Ministries must ensure decentralised distribution so that rural communities are served.

Public transparency in handovers and monitoring protects beneficiaries and officials alike.

Operational budgets should accompany donations to enable distribution, follow-up, and maintenance.

By following these principles, goodwill can translate into systematic, equitable, and lasting support, rather than isolated moments of charity.

A Global Lesson

Zimbabwe is not alone in facing the challenge of translating compassion into systemic change. Across the world, governments and civil society must ensure that help is predictable, rights-based, and universally accessible. Acts of generosity are vital, but they must complement — not replace — institutional accountability.

For Zimbabweans living with disabilities, the goal is clear: help must travel to the people, not the other way around. In the end, the measure of a society is not in its handouts, but in the strength of its institutions, the dignity of its citizens, and the predictability of its care.