It is hardly surprising that Prof. Gift Mugano and the ZFN Friday Drinks panel, led by Tinashe Murapata, have once again stepped forward as self-appointed auditors of national progress. Their commentary has become predictable: whenever Government registers measurable achievements, they instinctively cast doubt before examining the underlying facts. Thus, when Treasury announced funding for dam construction, they immediately reached for a narrative of suspicion.
Their latest attempt to question the 2025 dam allocations collapses under even the most basic scrutiny.
Prof. Mugano publicly pledged to “hunt for the dams,” an approach that might sound dramatic online but is unnecessary given the existence of the publicly available 2025 Infrastructure Development Programme (https://zimtreasury.co.zw/wp-content/uploads/2024/11/2025-INFRASTRUCTURE-Development-Programme.pdf). The document clearly outlines every project, contractor, milestone and expenditure. One does not need a field expedition to verify information that is already transparently presented.
Professors are expected to consult evidence. The information is accessible, detailed, and comprehensive.
The facts themselves remain clear and consistent. Zimbabwe’s national water security strategy includes 12 high-impact dams currently under construction. The prioritisation of Gwayi-Shangani and Kunzvi is fully aligned with policy and long-term planning, not speculation. The remaining ten – Ziminya, Semwa, Vungu, Mbada, Tuli Manyange, Dande, Bindura, Muswere, Musami and Defe – are all progressing with regular updates submitted to Treasury, ZINWA and Cabinet.
These are not abstract promises:
Gwayi-Shangani is 73 percent complete, with the hydro plant at 50 percent and the main wall now at 43 metres.
Kunzvi is 67 percent complete, with construction on the dam wall, spillway, intake tower and 48 km pipeline advancing simultaneously to accelerate water delivery to Harare.
These are verifiable engineering milestones, not political claims.
This steady progress also speaks directly to the Government’s alignment with President Mnangagwa’s and ZANU PF’s national development philosophy of leaving no one and no place behind, ensuring every region benefits from strategic water infrastructure.
To suggest these dams “cannot be seen” is therefore not an analytical position but a failure to acknowledge documented progress. This leades me to conclude that it is more of a political statement than anything else.
Interestingly, Prof. Mugano’s recent engagement with the Reserve Bank appears to have broadened his appreciation for Government systems and processes. This presents a valuable opportunity: he and the ZFN team could undertake a factual tour of the dam sites, allowing their commentary to be informed by on-the-ground realities rather than social media impressions.
Such a tour would require a willingness to engage with policy documents and the technical detail they contain.
Beyond the public debate lies the larger economic context. These dams are central to Zimbabwe’s irrigation expansion, agro-industrial development, water security, power generation and national climate resilience strategy. Their targeted completion by 2027 aligns with the country’s upper middle-income aspirations, and Government’s shift toward commercial models and private-sector participation reflects sound, internationally recognised cost-recovery principles.
Constructive criticism is always welcome. But effective critique must be anchored in evidence and policy – not in speculation or online theatrics.
The facts are public. The dams exist. The progress is measurable. And the myth of “invisible dams” dissolves the moment one sets aside hashtags and engages with the documented reality on the ground.
Post a comment