Jonathan Moyo, Mnangagwa and Command Ugly-Culture


0

Moyo, who is question this “success” allegedly belongs to the G40 faction of ZANU-PF said to be loyal to First Lady Grace Mugabe while Mnangagwa allegedly leads a faction called Lacoste.

Moyo insists there is no faction called G40 as this is a demographic group while Mnangagwa denies being linked to any faction.

Moyo  has been tweeting since the weekend attributing the command agriculture programme to the First Lady with Mnangagwa as the spoiler.

“The noble objectives of Command Agriculture first enunciated by Dr Grace Mugabe have been corrupted by VP Mnangagwa into an Ugly Culture!,” he tweeted at the weekend.

“VP Mnangagwa's Command Ugly Culture disguised as Command Agriculture is a corruption of a noble objective and is thus totally unacceptable!”

“I support Command Agriculture but not its corrupt implementation as a looting scheme & a parallel structure for a Lacoste power grab!” he tweeted yesterday.

“ I'm in court on ZIMDEF allegations. How about those who've looted Command Agriculture?”

The Insider has noted a strange similarity between Moyo’s tweets about Mnangagwa and facebook character Baba Jukwa’s posts about ZANU-PF and its leaders in the run-up to the 2013 elections.

(174 VIEWS)

Don't be shellfish... Please SHAREShare on google
Google
Share on twitter
Twitter
Share on facebook
Facebook
Share on linkedin
Linkedin
Share on email
Email
Share on print
Print

Like it? Share with your friends!

0
Charles Rukuni
The Insider is a political and business bulletin about Zimbabwe, edited by Charles Rukuni. Founded in 1990, it was a printed 12-page subscription only newsletter until 2003 when Zimbabwe's hyper-inflation made it impossible to continue printing.

One Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

  1. The criticism Minister Moyo has of the Command Agriculture Programme, is that it ended up benefitting certain factions in party and government hierachy and the Agricultural Minister confirms they did not supply inputs to 62% of the intended beneficiaries.  It is ugly to run government programmes for the benefit of the connected only.  The implementers are not admitting their shortcomings in trying to attack a critic and not address the criticism.  What plans are in place to ensure the winter cropping season is going to be more inclusive? Did the beneficiaries of the inputs get their fair share?