ZANU PF’S ENVIRONMENTAL EXCUSE LOOKS LIKE ANOTHER GOLD GRAB

Zimbabweans have become used to governments using beautiful language to hide ugly political deals. Words like reform, development, empowerment, and protection are often presented with confidence, only for citizens to later discover that the real goal was never public benefit at all. The latest controversy around river rehabilitation and alluvial mining raises exactly those fears again. What is being presented as environmental protection is being questioned by many who believe something very different may be happening behind the scenes.

The official explanation sounds respectable. River systems must be protected. Environmental damage caused by uncontrolled mining must be addressed. Water sources must be preserved. On the surface, these are serious and legitimate concerns. Zimbabwe’s rivers have indeed faced environmental pressure from mining activity, including siltation, pollution, and destructive extraction methods.

But public trust collapses when rules appear to apply differently depending on who is involved.

That is where this controversy becomes deeply troubling.

Government previously took strong action against alluvial riverbed mining through legal measures that effectively banned the activity, citing environmental destruction and the need for stronger control. Officials reinforced the message that there would be no exceptions, no special treatment, and no selective enforcement.

Now, however, controversy has erupted around reports that one politically connected company has been granted exclusive authority under the banner of river rehabilitation.

That contradiction is what many Zimbabweans are struggling to understand.

If environmental protection is truly the goal, then the rules should be transparent, fair, and consistently applied. If alluvial mining is considered too damaging for ordinary operators, the public will naturally ask why special arrangements appear possible for selected interests.

The concern becomes even sharper when questions emerge about the practical difference between rehabilitation and resource extraction. River rehabilitation may involve desilting, restoration, and environmental management. But when such work occurs in mineral rich environments, citizens will inevitably question whether gold extraction may occur alongside the public explanation.

That suspicion grows when the process appears closed rather than transparent.

Reports suggesting exclusive rights, limited public scrutiny, and the absence of open competitive processes create the impression of favouritism, even before deeper facts are fully tested. In countries where public trust is already weak, perception matters enormously.

Zimbabwe’s wider economic reality also shapes how citizens view this issue.

For many people, artisanal and small scale mining is not simply a political talking point. It is survival. Families depend on it for food, school fees, rent, and daily life. In an economy where formal jobs remain scarce and hardship continues, cutting off access to livelihoods while appearing to create space for politically connected actors creates understandable anger.

That anger is not only about mining.

It is about fairness.

Citizens are asking whether environmental protection is genuinely being applied as public policy or selectively used as a regulatory tool that punishes some while benefiting others.

Environmental responsibility absolutely matters. Zimbabwe cannot destroy its rivers, poison water sources, or ignore long term ecological damage. But environmental justice must be credible.

It cannot become believable if ordinary people are criminalised while exceptions appear available to powerful interests.

That destroys both trust and legitimacy.

The controversy also raises wider governance questions about transparency, tender processes, public accountability, and regulatory fairness. When major economic opportunities appear to emerge without open competition, citizens begin questioning whether public policy is being shaped for national benefit or private advantage.

Zimbabwe’s long struggle with corruption makes these questions unavoidable.

People have seen too many deals explained one way publicly while producing different outcomes privately.

That is why trust is so fragile.

If this project is genuinely about environmental rehabilitation, then transparency should be welcomed, not feared. The public deserves clarity about scope, oversight, legal authority, safeguards, and economic implications.

Because once citizens begin believing environmental language is simply political cover for economic capture, even legitimate conservation efforts become harder to defend.

Zimbabwe needs honest environmental policy.

Not another controversy that deepens public suspicion that the rules were never truly meant to apply equally.