Tendai Ruben Mbofana
In the convoluted political theater of Zimbabwe’s “Second Republic,” the concepts of “sovereignty” and “national interest” have been hijacked, repurposed, and weaponized as blunt-force instruments of repression.
If you value my social justice advocacy and writing, please consider a financial contribution to keep it going. Contact me on WhatsApp: +263 715 667 700 or Email: mbofana.tendairuben73@gmail.com
For decades, the ruling elite and their echo chamber of sympathizers have hidden behind these noble terms to shield themselves from the glare of accountability.
The latest casualty in this long-standing war against the truth is journalist Blessed Mhlanga, whose recent appearance at the 18th Geneva Summit for Human Rights and Democracy has triggered a predictable, yet uniquely hysterical, reaction from the corridors of power in Harare.
By labeling a citizen’s testimony about state-sponsored injustice as an act of “willfully injuring the sovereignty of Zimbabwe,” the government has not only exposed its own profound insecurity but has also provided the world with a masterclass in authoritarian overreach.
The irony of the situation is as thick as it is tragic.
Mhlanga was invited to the Geneva Summit—a forum I also had the honor of being invited to attend—to share a personal narrative of state overreach.
He did not call for the invasion of Zimbabwe; he did not lobby for the destruction of its economy; he simply chronicled his 75-day incarceration following an interview with the late war veteran Blessed Geza, who had dared to call for President Emmerson Mnangagwa’s resignation.
Mhlanga spoke of the agony of being denied his constitutional right to bail—a right, he noted with biting accuracy, that is frequently afforded to rapists and murderers, yet withheld from those who carry a notebook and a microphone.
He spoke of the pain, the suffering, and the systematic attempt to criminalize the profession of journalism.
To the rational mind, this is a plea for the rule of law.
To the Zimbabwe regime, however, telling the truth on a global stage is translated as a high crime under Section 22A of the Criminal Law (Codification and Reform) Amendment Act—the notorious and ill-conceived “Patriotic Act.”
The reaction from Information Minister Soda Zhemu and a chorus of regime sycophants has been nothing short of draconian.
There have been chilling calls to evoke this “Patriotic Act” to penalize Mhlanga, with some even demanding the revocation of his passport and citizenship.
This suggests a terrifying new standard: that Zimbabwean citizenship is a conditional gift from the ruling party, contingent upon one’s willingness to remain silent while being beaten.
This is a fundamental misunderstanding of what a nation-state is.
A country’s sovereignty does not reside in the comfort of its politicians; it resides in the dignity and rights of its people.
When a government treats the exposure of its own abuses as a threat to the nation, it is admitting that its interests and the nation’s interests are no longer the same.
The absurdity of Zimbabwe’s stance becomes glaringly obvious when placed in a global context.
The 18th Geneva Summit featured a litany of voices from across the globe who have faced the sharp end of state repression.
From Uganda’s Bobi Wine to Hong Kong’s Chloe Cheung, Pedro Urruchurtu Noselli of Venezuela, and Sviatlana Tsikhanouskaya of Belarus, the stage was filled with individuals who have been hounded, exiled, or imprisoned by their respective governments.
Yet, as reports indicate, Zimbabwe stands alone in its peculiar brand of vengeful insecurity, threatening its citizen for merely speaking his truth.
Even other notoriously repressive regimes often possess the tactical restraint to keep quiet when their abuses are highlighted, understanding that a loud, aggressive reaction only validates the speaker’s claims.
By threatening Mhlanga with the “Patriotic Act,” the Harare administration has essentially handed him a megaphone, proving his point more effectively than any speech ever could.
We must look at how functional democracies handle such “injuries” to their national image.
In 2020, Philonise Floyd addressed the very same Geneva Summit.
He spoke passionately about the killing of his brother, George Floyd, at the hands of law enforcement and decried what he perceived as systemic racism within the United States.
He took his grievances to the global stage, calling for international pressure and UN intervention.
Did the US government revoke his passport?
Did they accuse him of injuring the sovereignty of the United States?
Did they threaten him with a “Patriotic Act”?
No.
They understood that the strength of a sovereign nation is found in its ability to withstand criticism and its commitment to the rights of its citizens to seek justice wherever it may be found.
The US recognizes that its national interest is served by addressing police brutality, not by imprisoning those who complain about it.
Zimbabwe, conversely, seems to believe that national interest is a synonym for “regime protection.”
It is time we deconstruct this semantic sleight of hand.
Sovereignty is the authority of a state to govern itself, but that authority is derived from a social contract with the people.
It is not a “get out of jail free” card for leaders who wish to loot resources and oppress dissent with impunity.
National interest should encompass the collective well-being, security, and prosperity of every Zimbabwean.
It should mean that our hospitals have medicine, our children have quality education, and our journalists can work without the constant shadow of a prison cell looming over them.
Instead, the regime has substituted these genuine national interests with the personal interests of a ruling elite.
For them, “injuring national interest” simply means “hurting our feelings” or “exposing our corruption.”
They have conflated the state with the party, and the party with the individual leaders, creating a feedback loop where any call for accountability is viewed as a treasonous act.
The lack of restraint shown by the Zimbabwean authorities is an embarrassment to the nation and an indictment of the so-called “Second Republic.”
The fact that the Geneva Summit for Human Rights and Democracy felt compelled to write to the UN Secretary-General, urging him to engage the authorities in Harare, shows just how far Zimbabwe has fallen in the eyes of the international community.
If the regime truly cared about the “national interest,” it would realize that its current path is the greatest threat to our global standing.
You cannot market a country as “Open for Business” while simultaneously threatening to strip the citizenship of those who point out that the door is barred and the guards are armed.
True sovereignty is not fragile.
It does not shatter because a journalist speaks at a conference in Switzerland.
A nation that is confident in its justice system, its respect for human rights, and its adherence to the rule of law has nothing to fear from the truth.
If the Zimbabwean government wants to protect the national interest, the formula is simple: respect the Constitution, uphold the rights of citizens, and stop the cycle of repression.
Only then can Zimbabwe be a proud, respected member of the global community.
Our sovereignty is not a shroud to be draped over the victims of injustice; it is a banner of freedom that should protect every citizen.
Hiding behind fancy phrases and “Patriotic Acts” will no longer suffice.
Our national interest is not found in the silence of the oppressed, but in the courage of those who speak up to demand a better, more just nation for us all.
- Tendai Ruben Mbofana is a social justice advocate and writer. To directly receive his articles please join his WhatsApp Channel on: https://whatsapp.com/channel/0029VaqprWCIyPtRnKpkHe08
The post Protecting sovereignty and national interests should never be about keeping quiet in the face of injustice appeared first on Zimbabwe Situation.