Geza’s Failed Attempts To Unseat Mnangagwa: A Deeper Look

By Advent Shoko

Blessed Runesu Geza, a former liberation war fighter and expelled ZANU-PF Central Committee member, has twice tried to remove President Emmerson Mnangagwa from power.

His first effort involved a planned march on March 31, followed by a call for an indefinite national shutdown starting April 21.

However, both actions failed to gain traction, exposing weaknesses in strategy, mobilisation, and public perception.

GEZA’S ALLEGATIONS AGAINST MNANGAGWA

Geza has levelled serious accusations against Mnangagwa, branding him corrupt, power-hungry, and selfish. In a bold interview, he declared, “He wants to eat alone. I also want to eat. I want bodyguards. I’m not a political condom.”

This explosive language underscored his frustration at being sidelined and his view that Mnangagwa has consolidated power solely for personal gain. Geza’s primary concern is the suspected plot by Mnangagwa and his allies to extend his rule beyond the 2028 constitutional limit.

Mnangagwa’s declaration, “2030 ndeendichipo,” raised eyebrows, while his Information Minister, Dr. Jenfan Muswere, suggested potential constitutional amendments to allow more than two terms.

Furthermore, ZANU-PF’s provincial structures have already endorsed Mnangagwa as the party’s future candidate. Although the president later stated he respects term limits, his opponents remain unconvinced.

WHY GEZA FAILED

Geza’s efforts to topple Mnangagwa did not fail because the grievances lacked merit, but because of fundamental issues with execution, strategy, and context. Below is a critical breakdown:

1. A Recycled Script with No Surprise Element

Geza’s approach mirrors the 2017 strategy that led to Mugabe’s ouster. That plan relied heavily on public pressure and behind-the-scenes military coordination. However, Mnangagwa, having lived through and possibly designed that playbook, is now better prepared to counter any similar attempt. He reshuffled his cabinet to weaken potential dissenters, especially within the security sector, appointing loyalists in key ministries. This has likely closed the door on any possibility of a ‘palace coup’ or military-backed protest. Geza underestimated the regime’s defensive posture.

2. Bread-and-Butter Realities of Zimbabweans

Zimbabwe’s economic environment is deeply harsh. The average citizen lives hand-to-mouth. Vendors, taxi drivers, and civil servants can’t afford to stay home for a political cause that has no clear outcome. Missing a day of work means missing a day of food. Geza’s shutdown demanded a level of sacrifice that few could afford, especially with no support structures in place to cushion the impact. Unlike 2016’s #ThisFlag campaign or the 2019 fuel protests, there was no galvanising moment to unify suffering into action.

3. No Alternative Plan Beyond the Shutdown

Even if the shutdown had gained traction, Geza offered no roadmap. What happens after the shutdown? Would he call for negotiations, or was he relying solely on pressure? The absence of a visible, practical plan made his movement appear amateurish. A well-executed movement requires layers—political, legal, diplomatic, and grassroots coordination. Geza’s strategy was a one-trick pony, devoid of meaningful political infrastructure.

4. Lack of Broad Political Consensus

No major political player backed Geza. Nelson Chamisa, arguably the most influential opposition figure, kept his distance. This wasn’t just political caution—it was strategic. Chamisa likely saw the flaws and potential for co-optation. Without coalition-building, even the most righteous of causes becomes marginal. Geza’s movement appeared individualistic, lacking both national appeal and unity of purpose. The absence of civic society, churches, and labour unions in his corner left his cause hollow.

5. No Trigger Event—The ‘Sarajevo Moment’

Movements often need a flashpoint—something visceral and immediate. In 2019, it was fuel hikes. In Tunisia’s Arab Spring, it was a vendor’s self-immolation. Geza’s protests lacked urgency. People have slowly adjusted to suffering in Zimbabwe; inflation, taxes, and corruption are now normalised. His timing was poor. If the shutdown had come right after painful tax policies or new salary cuts, the outcome may have been different. Instead, he mobilised against the abstract idea of extended term limits—important but not immediately painful.

CONCLUSION

Geza’s mission is not without merit. The issues he raises—entrenchment of power, constitutional violations, and corruption—resonate widely. However, political change requires more than grievances. It requires strategy, legitimacy, timing, and above all, the people. Until Geza refines his approach, broadens his appeal, and presents a credible national agenda, his efforts will remain symbolic rather than catalytic. As it stands, he remains a lone voice shouting in a storm.

Download the Pindula App for a better user experience.