By Takudzwa Changadeya| A seemingly straightforward community bridge project in rural Zvishavane has exploded into a political confrontation after ZANU-PF Zvishavane-Ngezi legislator Mecky Jaravaza accused opposition People’s Unity Party (PUP) leader Herbert Chamuka of using development to gain political mileage.
The confrontation exposed what residents described as a growing tension between community-driven development initiatives and Zimbabwe’s highly politicised local governance structures, with Chamuka insisting that he was acting as an ordinary resident trying to solve a problem that authorities had failed to address for years.
The dispute centres on a proposed bridge in Jona Village under Chief Matenda, where residents say they have endured years of difficulties crossing a river, particularly when water levels rise.
Chamuka, who says he was born in the Jona and Mapfumo villages, mobilised resources for the construction of the bridge after residents approached him about the problem.
But the project was halted after local authorities and traditional leaders raised concerns that the required procedures had not been followed.
What followed was a tense meeting involving residents, traditional leaders, councillors and council officials , with the political temperature rising sharply when Jaravaza entered the debate.
Jaravaza, a ZANU-PF MP, said he supported development but insisted that any project had to comply with government procedures.
“We are not against development.
“What we support is development that is carried out in an orderly manner and in accordance with the laws and regulations of the country,” Jaravaza said.
But the MP went further, directly linking Chamuka’s political identity to the dispute.
“Where the problem becomes difficult is that you are from the opposition,” Jaravaza told Chamuka.
He accused the PUP leader of seeking political mileage from the project.
“The concern is that Chamuka came with the project in a way that could give him political mileage. If that is the intention, then you are approaching the matter wrongly,” Jaravaza said.
The remarks turned what had begun as a disagreement over administrative procedures into an unmistakably political confrontation.
Jaravaza, however, acknowledged the need for the bridge and said the project itself could proceed if the proper authorities were approached.
“If you follow the proper channels and obtain the necessary authority from the responsible provincial authorities, then we will support the development,” he said.
He warned that proceeding without the required approvals could have endangered the community and potentially damaged the village.
Jaravaza also appeared to acknowledge the political significance of Chamuka’s approach, saying it was unusual to see an opposition politician attempting to deliver a project of that nature.
“This is the first time I have seen an opposition politician doing what Chamuka is doing,” Jaravaza said, while praising President Emmerson Mnangagwa’s performance but suggesting that Chamuka was effectively claiming that more could be done.
The MP’s comments are likely to intensify questions over whether opposition politicians can independently undertake community development projects in areas controlled by structures associated with the ruling establishment.
Chamuka has previously positioned PUP as an opposition movement focused on development and inclusive governance rather than conventional electoral confrontation.
His party has also publicly supported elements of the government’s development agenda while calling for broader political inclusion.
The latest confrontation therefore places Chamuka in an unusual position: an opposition leader whose development initiative has drawn resistance from a ruling-party legislator, despite the legislator himself acknowledging that the community needs the project.
Speaking after the meeting, Chamuka rejected the suggestion that the bridge was a political project.
He said he was particularly unhappy that Jaravaza had been invited into a matter he regarded primarily as a community development issue.
“I did not like the decision to bring the MP into this matter,” Chamuka said.
“I am a resident who wants to help my community, but Jaravaza came into the meeting and immediately framed my projects as attempts to gain political mileage. That is not true.”
Chamuka said he had not intended to bypass authorities and accepted that he and the community had initially misunderstood the procedures governing the construction of such infrastructure.
He said he had already been advised by Ward 4 councillor Nancy Netsayi Bhachi to approach Runde Rural District Council, and that he was now prepared to follow the required process.
“We were not fully aware of the protocol we were supposed to follow. Chief Matenda had given us permission to lead the programme at community level, and we began mobilising materials. Later, we were stopped because we had taken the wrong route,” Chamuka explained.
He said the meeting had nevertheless provided an opportunity to clarify the procedures.
“Now that we understand what is required, we apologise for the mistake and are asking for guidance. We are ready to follow the correct process.”
But Chamuka maintained that the urgency behind the project was genuine.
He said successive councillors had failed to adequately address the community’s longstanding difficulties with the river crossing.
“Since 1980, we have had many councillors, but this problem has remained. I do not believe there has been a serious plan to address this river,” he said.
According to Chamuka, the decision to begin mobilising for the bridge was partly intended to force authorities and the community to confront the problem.
“We did what we did to provoke this conversation because this river had been ignored for too long,” he said.
The political dimension was further highlighted by Runde Rural District Council chairperson Nomore Nyoni, who told the meeting that the council works with responsible authorities and also reports to ZANU-PF structures.
“We work hand in hand with the responsible authorities. We also report to ZANU-PF offices,” Nyoni said.
The remark is likely to raise questions about the relationship between elected local government structures and political-party structures, particularly in communities where development initiatives become politically contested.
Runde Rural District Council is the rural local-government authority responsible for Zvishavane’s rural areas and operates under Zimbabwe’s rural district council framework.
Ward 4 councillor Nancy Netsayi Bhachi rejected suggestions that she was opposed to the bridge.
Bhachi said she only became aware of the project after receiving information from villagers and later speaking to Chamuka.
“The project began without my knowledge. I did not receive the information formally,” Bhachi said.
She said Chamuka later contacted her and acknowledged that the project had initially been approached through the wrong channels.
“I advised them to approach Runde Rural District Council and follow the correct procedures,” she said.
Bhachi said she was therefore surprised when reports began circulating that she had personally stopped the bridge construction.
“I was disappointed when I started receiving calls saying that I was the person who had stopped the construction. I was never against the bridge. I want development in my ward, which is why I took the matter to council.”
Her explanation puts her at odds with the perception among some residents that council officials were frustrating the project.
Residents who attended the meeting largely defended Chamuka’s intentions, while acknowledging that they had acted without fully understanding the required procedures.
One villager described the decision to support the project as an act of desperation.
“This was done out of ignorance and desperation. We did not know exactly how the process was supposed to work,” the resident said.
The villager said the community had previously raised the bridge issue with the council but had waited for a long time without seeing a solution.
“When Chamuka came with this project, we accepted it quickly because we are desperate. We need this bridge. We could not afford to wait any longer.”
Another resident admitted that the community had acted in haste.
“We did it in a hurry because we did not know there were procedures we were supposed to follow,” the resident said.
Another participant defended the involvement of individuals willing to put their own resources into neglected rural communities.
“There are people who take initiatives to improve marginalised communities. We were happy to see someone like Chamuka coming forward with resources to help us,” the resident said.
The frustration was also directed at what residents perceived as inconsistent treatment of community development initiatives.
Emanuel Betu, a resident who attended the meeting, said villagers had already begun repairing roads and working on smaller infrastructure projects through community contributions.
“We have started repairing roads and working on other small bridge projects. Other residents have donated towards road repairs and nobody questioned them in this way,” Betu said.
“Why is Chamuka being stopped? There are people who want to do similar projects in the same area, yet nobody approaches them in the same manner.”
Betu accused authorities of failing to provide adequate services to remote communities.
“We have been doing these things ourselves because the council has been here for a long time. People in these remote areas have suffered from poor service delivery.”
Another resident challenged council officials to spend more time in the communities affected by poor infrastructure.
“We have small problems in rural areas and have been helping ourselves because we have been neglected for so long. Now that someone wants to come with resources to help, we are surprised that questions are suddenly being raised,” the resident said.
“We challenge the council to visit us in these remote areas. We have suffered for a long time without adequate service delivery.”
The meeting also became tense over questions concerning the source and amount of money being committed to the project.
Chamuka said officials wanted detailed explanations about where his money came from, including information about his business interests outside Zimbabwe.
He rejected what he described as excessive questioning.
“I have my own business abroad, but they now want me to explain exactly what business it is, where it is located and other details. I do not think that is professional,” Chamuka said.
The issue added another layer to an already politically charged meeting, with the dispute moving beyond the legality of the construction process to questions over who was financing the project and why.
Another resident who attended the meeting, said traditional leaders and residents had initially welcomed the project.
He said he had taken the matter to the chief, who advised the community to engage the councillor before proceeding.
“We welcomed the project. I took the matter to the chief, who advised that we should approach the councillor,” he said.
He said villagers had begun mobilising materials while waiting for guidance from the responsible authorities.
“Chief Matenda later stopped us and told us that we had to follow the proper procedures. We then appointed a committee to approach Councillor Bhachi, who promised to guide us on how to proceed.”
He apologised on behalf of the community for failing to understand the procedures from the beginning.
At the heart of the dispute is a question that goes beyond one bridge: who gets to deliver development in Zimbabwe’s rural communities, and what happens when the person bringing the resources belongs to the opposition?
Chamuka insists that he is simply a resident trying to solve a problem that has persisted for decades.
Jaravaza insists that development must follow official channels and has openly questioned the political motives behind Chamuka’s intervention.
Residents, meanwhile, appear less interested in the political contest and more concerned about having a safe crossing over the river.
The confrontation is particularly striking because Jaravaza himself acknowledged that the project could be beneficial.
The 2023 election results confirm Jaravaza as the ZANU-PF representative for Zvishavane-Ngezi, making his intervention in a development dispute involving an opposition leader politically significant.
Chamuka’s supporters are now likely to view the episode as evidence that opposition-led development initiatives face political barriers even when they address problems that government and local authorities have struggled to resolve.
The council and ruling-party officials, however, are likely to maintain that the issue is not about preventing Chamuka from helping his community but about ensuring that infrastructure projects comply with the law.
Yet for residents standing on opposite sides of a river that has reportedly remained a problem for years, the distinction may matter little.
They want the bridge.
And the increasingly political question is whether the person willing to build it matters more to the authorities than the bridge itself.
The meeting ended with Chamuka agreeing to follow the required procedures, but the political confrontation it exposed is unlikely to disappear as easily.
For an opposition leader attempting to turn private resources into public infrastructure, the Zvishavane bridge dispute has become a test of whether development can truly be separated from politics in Zimbabwe.
