By Brighton Mutebuka
The proposition that @nelsonchamisa could have single-handedly — or even with the aid of captured party leaders — challenged ED over Tshabangu and the sham elections is hollow and misconceived.
Firstly, the infiltration was designed to create paralysis at a critical moment. That’s why Tshabangu struck when he did.
A leader’s capacity to mobilise his base stems from two fundamental sources:
a. A cockpit (leadership team) working in tandem;
b. A solid but restless, agitated, courageous, and highly motivated party base.
Tshabangu and other captured party leaders consistently challenged Chamisa and chipped away at his legitimacy and authority — precisely when it was needed most.
That resulted in the loss of vital momentum, cohesion, and direction — a precursor to the ultimate and inevitable demise of the party.
Even without Chamisa marshalling them, Zimbabweans could still have poured into the streets in peaceful protest for their votes — as we’ve seen in Kenya and Sudan.
The real reason they didn’t (and still don’t) is a national pandemic of cowardice.
What Chamisa’s critics seem to want is for him to confront the regime single-handedly, get arrested, and languish in jail for some time.
It’s the price they want him to pay to cement his legacy as a bona fide opposition leader — regardless of how impactful that actually is in the wider scheme of things.
They expect him to make a sacrifice they themselves are unwilling to make.
The “Bible verses” are simply gaslit by his critics to mask the true extent of their frustration.
Brighton Mutebuka is a Zimbabwean lawyer and UK-based solicitor. He is Principal at Mutebuka & Co Immigration Lawyers, and also works as a sports lawyer, human rights advocate, and political commentator.