Former Central Intelligence Organisation (CIO) chiefs Happyton Bonyongwe and Lovemore Itai Mukandi have broken their silence, revealing how Zimbabwe’s intelligence services have long been compromised by political interference. In newly released memoirs, the two ex-spy bosses paint a troubling picture of an institution that has been transformed from a professional security agency into a partisan tool of power preservation—raising fears of another military-style intervention reminiscent of the 2017 coup that toppled Robert Mugabe.
Their testimonies, published earlier this year, have reignited national debate about the state of Zimbabwe’s security institutions and their role in the ruling ZANU-PF’s succession battles. Analysts say the revelations expose an ongoing pattern of institutional capture, elite rivalry, and covert power struggles that could again push the nation to the brink of political upheaval.
In February 2025, former CIO Director-General Happyton Bonyongwe—who served the longest tenure under the late President Robert Mugabe—published One Among Many: My Contribution to the Zimbabwean Story. Shortly afterward, his former deputy, Lovemore Itai Mukandi, released How Mnangagwa Blindsided Robert Mugabe and Grabbed Zimbabwe.
Both books offer rare insider accounts of how the CIO Chief became entangled in ZANU-PF’s succession wars. CIO Chief Bonyongwe recounts how intelligence operations increasingly blurred the line between state and party, while Mukandi goes further—accusing President Emmerson Mnangagwa of running a “parallel CIO” structure from as early as 1999, long after leaving the Ministry of State Security. He claims Mnangagwa’s faction held secret meetings in Gweru with loyal operatives who fed him intelligence behind Mugabe’s back, effectively undermining the official chain of command.
Such allegations strike at the heart of the state’s integrity. They suggest that, even before the 2017 coup, Zimbabwe’s intelligence architecture had already fractured along factional lines—a pattern now repeating itself as Mnangagwa and Vice President Constantino Chiwenga vie for control of the post-2028 political landscape.
Former CIO Chiefs Warn of Political Capture: Could Zimbabwe Be Headed for Another Coup?
Professor Allen Munoriyarwa of Walter Sisulu University, writing in ZimEye, argues that the former spy chiefs’ revelations demonstrate how “the intelligence agency serves not national interests but the narrow political objectives of the ruling party.” He warns that the ongoing infiltration of ZANU-PF factional battles into state security structures “echoes the same patterns that preceded the 2017 coup,” describing it as a form of “institutional capture and parallel intelligence operations.”
Indeed, Zimbabwe’s 2017 coup was not a spontaneous act but the culmination of years of behind-the-scenes power struggles within the army and intelligence sectors. When Mugabe was ousted, many believed it marked a turning point—a chance to depoliticize state institutions. Yet, as the new memoirs reveal, the same dynamics persist. The CIO, once again, appears to be operating under political influence, with officers allegedly aligned to either Mnangagwa or Chiwenga depending on loyalty and promise of reward.
The internal war within ZANU-PF has now become Zimbabwe’s most pressing political fault line. The ruling party’s recent conference, which endorsed Mnangagwa’s tenure extension to 2030, has only intensified speculation about his future intentions. Though Mnangagwa has publicly denied seeking a third term, his silence amid the “2030 campaign” has emboldened supporters pushing to amend the constitution.
Analysts believe the unresolved question of succession could destabilize the country once again. The party’s two main power blocs—Mnangagwa’s Midlands-based loyalists and Chiwenga’s military-aligned faction—are reportedly building parallel political and intelligence networks. These developments mirror the tense environment of 2017, when ZANU-PF’s factional disputes spilled into the barracks and ultimately triggered Mugabe’s downfall.
“The final arbiters of this conflict will not be party members but the coercive institutions of the state,” notes one security analyst. “Once again, the CIO and military may be forced to pick sides—and that’s where the danger lies.”
In his memoir, CIO Chief Bonyongwe admits to personally attempting to persuade Mugabe to retire, even seeking to involve Grace Mugabe in succession talks. “That was not the role of an intelligence chief,” critics argue, “but of a political operative.” His actions illustrate how deeply the CIO had been drawn into party politics—prioritizing leadership disputes over national security.
Mukandi’s accusations of a “shadow CIO” structure are equally alarming. If true, they reveal how political leaders have consistently used intelligence networks to consolidate power. Mugabe himself was accused of maintaining such systems during his tenure. The recurrence of this phenomenon suggests a structural flaw in Zimbabwe’s governance model—where the boundaries between state and party remain dangerously blurred.
Experts warn that the politicization of intelligence threatens Zimbabwe’s stability. When security institutions serve political factions instead of national interests, they cease to function as protectors of the state—they become weapons of internal control.
To restore professionalism, Zimbabwe must overhaul oversight mechanisms for its intelligence agencies, improve officer remuneration, and depoliticize recruitment. Reports that ruling party youths are being seconded into the CIO only deepen the perception of partisanship. Underpaid agents, driven by loyalty to individuals rather than the nation, can easily become tools in power struggles.
The lessons of 2017 remain fresh. Then, a militarized solution to a political problem brought temporary change but entrenched the same system of patronage and secrecy. Today, the warning signs are clear: parallel intelligence structures, factional infiltration, and succession anxiety.
Unless Zimbabwe urgently reforms its security architecture, the ghosts of November 2017 may once again rise—this time with consequences even more destabilizing than before.
