ZACC HAS BECOME A SYMBOL OF WHY ZIMBABWE IS LOSING THE WAR AGAINST CORRUPTION
For more than four decades, ZANU PF has promised to eradicate corruption, strengthen institutions and build a transparent public sector. Yet corruption remains one of the defining characteristics of governance in Zimbabwe. Almost every year brings new scandals, missing public funds, questionable procurement deals and allegations of abuse of office, but meaningful accountability remains the exception rather than the rule.
At the centre of this failed anti corruption agenda sits the Zimbabwe Anti Corruption Commission, an institution that was supposed to be independent, fearless and uncompromising. Instead, many Zimbabweans increasingly view ZACC as ineffective, selective and incapable of confronting corruption where it matters most.
The commission was created to protect public resources and restore confidence in state institutions. Instead, confidence continues to decline as Zimbabwe slips further into a governance crisis where allegations of corruption dominate headlines while successful prosecutions of politically connected individuals remain rare.
An anti corruption commission cannot succeed if citizens believe there are two systems of justice. One for ordinary Zimbabweans and another for those with political influence.
That perception has only been reinforced by fresh allegations emerging from within ZACC itself.
According to multiple insiders, the commission’s latest recruitment exercise has allegedly been manipulated through predetermined shortlists, patronage and nepotism. Sources allege that interviews became little more than a procedural exercise because preferred candidates had allegedly already been identified before the process even began.
If those allegations are true, they expose a disturbing contradiction.
How can an institution established to fight corruption allegedly tolerate practices within its own recruitment system that resemble the very conduct it is mandated to investigate elsewhere?
The irony could not be greater.
According to insiders, approximately 35 candidates competed for 11 strategic positions, including senior investigative and management roles. However, several sources allege that successful candidates had effectively already been chosen before interviews took place. Other insiders allege that recruitment committees were merely implementing instructions issued from senior levels within the organisation.
These allegations have not been publicly addressed by the commission.
Whether they are ultimately substantiated or not, they deepen an already existing crisis of confidence surrounding an institution whose effectiveness depends entirely on public trust.
The larger problem extends beyond recruitment.
Zimbabweans have watched countless corruption scandals emerge over the years involving millions of dollars, yet convictions remain limited while many high profile figures continue with business as usual. Every unresolved scandal further weakens confidence that the fight against corruption is genuine rather than selective.
Critics have long argued that under ZANU PF, institutions that should operate independently have become increasingly vulnerable to political influence. When oversight bodies lose public confidence, accountability suffers and corruption flourishes.
No country can successfully fight corruption while anti corruption institutions themselves face questions about transparency and independence.
Zimbabwe deserves an anti corruption commission that investigates corruption without fear or favour, regardless of political office, party affiliation or economic influence. It deserves appointments based on competence rather than alleged patronage. It deserves institutions that protect the public interest rather than the interests of the politically connected.
The tragedy is that corruption is not simply about stolen money. It is about hospitals that remain underequipped, schools that deteriorate, roads that are never completed and young professionals who lose opportunities because merit is allegedly replaced by connections.
As long as corruption continues to thrive and institutions charged with fighting it struggle to command public confidence, Zimbabwe’s development will remain hostage to poor governance.
The fight against corruption begins with credibility. If ZACC cannot convince Zimbabweans that it is independent, transparent and accountable, it will remain another institution whose promise has been overshadowed by public distrust.
For Zimbabwe to win the battle against corruption, accountability cannot be selective. It must begin at the very top and extend to every institution, every public office and every individual, regardless of political affiliation. Until that happens, the promise of a corruption free Zimbabwe will remain exactly that: a promise.
