Rutendo Matinyarare: The man who killed a dead lion

Rutendo Matinyarare says he is owed US$5 million for helping remove sanctions on Zimbabwe.

That is quite a claim.

The difficulty is that sanctions were not removed because one activist finally convinced the West to abandon them. By 2024, sanctions had largely outlived their original purpose.

Robert Mugabe had been dead for five years. Land reform was irreversible. The opposition no longer presented a realistic governing alternative. The relationship between Zimbabwe and the West had shifted from confrontation towards re-engagement.

Meanwhile, Western investors were increasingly frustrated as Chinese and Russian interests secured opportunities they wanted access to.

The geopolitical weather had already changed.

Matinyarare merely arrived at the funeral carrying a spear and later claimed responsibility for killing the lion.

The lion had already died.

Now let us assume, for a moment, that he is right. Let us assume he really is the man who defeated sanctions.

That raises an awkward question. How does a man who claims to have forced Washington to retreat end up being silenced through a public Twitter negotiation involving a vehicle and cash in tens of thousands of dollars?

How does a man who says he delivered a US$5 million geopolitical victory discover that his own political convictions are apparently worth far less? A mere vehicle and $200 000.

One would expect a revolutionary to say:

“Pay me the US$5 million you owe me. What I think about CAB 3 is none of your business.”

Instead, Zimbabweans watched a man who claimed to have defeated sanctions negotiate with considerably less determination than he allegedly negotiated with the West.

The mercy pleading apology to Mnangagwa’s family was so passionate it drew tears of empathy. That was apology profusely delivered at the sight of a Toyota Land Cruiser.

The contradiction is impossible to ignore.

If CAB 3 was a constitutional outrage on Friday, how did a Land Cruiser answer the constitutional questions by Monday?

Section 328 did not change. One person, one vote did not change.

The Constitution did not change.

Only the negotiations changed. That is the real problem.

Political principles are supposed to be convictions. Convictions are things you hold because they are true.

The moment they become dependent on settlements, gifts, apologies, photographs and reconciliations, they stop looking like convictions and start looking like invoices.

And a patriot who sends an invoice for his principles should not be surprised when citizens begin asking whether they were following a movement or merely watching a quotation being negotiated.