Peter Moyo
The government has officially addressed the recent allocation of residential stands to Members of Parliament (MPs), following explosive allegations on social media that the land grants were intended to dissuade legislators from supporting a potential impeachment motion against President Emmerson Mnangagwa.
Over the past 48 hours, widespread claims circulated on social media platforms suggesting that the allocation of 70 stands to MPs was a strategic move to secure loyalty amid growing political tensions. Sources cited in these reports alleged that the timing—just as rumours of a possible impeachment motion gained traction—raised suspicions of a quid pro quo arrangement.
In a press statement today, the Ministry of Local Government and Public Works framed the land allocations as part of a decade-old parliamentary benefits scheme. The Ministry confirmed that 15 stands were allocated in Killarney (Goromonzi), 15 in Penrose (Zvimba), and 40 in Mabelreign (Harare), stressing that this was routine under a policy established in 2013.
“This facility is a once-off entitlement, part of the conditions of service for Honourable members, and is in no way tied to any political process,” the statement read. It further emphasized that similar allocations had been made for previous Parliaments, including under different political climates.
The clarification comes amid heightened political uncertainty in Zimbabwe. While no formal impeachment motion has been tabled, murmurs of discontent within the ruling ZANU-PF and opposition circles have intensified in recent weeks. Critics argue that the land allocations—particularly in prime locations like Harare—could be perceived as a reward for political compliance.
Public sentiment appears divided. Some citizens dismiss the bribery claims as unfounded speculation, while others recall Zimbabwe’s history of land being used as a political tool. “We’ve seen this before—land for loyalty,” remarked a Bulawayo-based political analyst. “The timing will always raise eyebrows.”
The government has pledged to provide “regular updates” on housing allocations but has not committed to releasing detailed lists of beneficiaries. With political temperatures rising, the controversy may fuel further debate over governance and accountability in Zimbabwe’s Parliament.
For now, the impeachment rumours remain unconfirmed, but the land allocations have undeniably added fuel to the fire of Zimbabwe’s ever-volatile political discourse.
