The Bombshell That Went Bust: Geza’s Fireball Extinguished?

For a man who once blazed onto the scene with the promise of change, Geza’s latest address left many Zimbabweans puzzled, if not downright disheartened. His once-fiery rhetoric has now simmered down to an incoherent mix of contradictory statements, impeachment fantasies, and misplaced congratulations.

During his address last night, Geza accused President Mnangagwa of suffering from dementia. But judging by the way he has been flip-flopping on his own stance, one would be forgiven for thinking that he is the one struggling with memory issues. Earlier this week, he boldly declared that Mnangagwa would be removed. Now, he is talking about impeachment—a political route that is, frankly, a non-starter.

Geza’s so-called push for impeachment is dead on arrival.

According to Section 97 of the Zimbabwean Constitution, removing the President is no walk in the park. First, at least 50% of parliament and the Senate must support a motion to initiate an investigation. If that somehow happens (and that’s a big if), a nine-member committee is then appointed to investigate the charges. If they find grounds for impeachment, the final hurdle is a two-thirds majority vote in both houses. And here’s the kicker—ZANU-PF holds a dominant majority, making this process as realistic as spotting snow in Harare in July.

In short, without significant support from ZANU-PF itself, this plan is destined to collapse before it even begins. If Geza genuinely believes impeachment is possible under these circumstances, then perhaps the dementia accusations are misdirected.

Adding to the impossibility of his claims, the opposition in parliament, led by Sengezo Tshabangu, has shown no real strength to challenge ZANU-PF’s grip. Tshabangu himself has been accused of being a political pawn rather than a force for change. From his role in engineering recalls that weakened the opposition to his failure to rally meaningful parliamentary resistance, it is clear that Geza has no real backing for his impeachment fantasy.

Perhaps the most confusing part of Geza’s address was his bizarre congratulations to Zimbabweans who did not participate in the March 31 demonstration—yes, the same protest that he had previously urged people to attend in large numbers. He now claims that the demonstration was actually a successful “stay-away.” If that was the goal, why did he initially rally people to take to the streets? If anything, this only exposed his disorganized strategy and left many of his supporters scratching their heads.

Even more alarming is his lack of clarity on what happens to those who were arrested while participating in the demo. Instead of reassuring his supporters and providing a clear way forward, he skirted around the issue, leaving Zimbabweans with the sobering realization that they are on their own. Was this about the people, or was it just about Geza’s personal grievances with his party?

While Geza was rallying people to the streets, Nelson Chamisa remained noticeably silent. Some social media commentators criticized him for not supporting the demonstration, but in hindsight, it appears Chamisa may have foreseen this chaos and wisely chose not to attach himself to what is now shaping up to be a spectacular failure.

With Geza now pivoting to impeachment, it’s safe to say the momentum he once had has fizzled out. Zimbabweans who were emotionally invested in his fight now find themselves in a state of speculation, wondering if they should continue trusting him or simply move on.

Maybe, just maybe, this is all part of Geza’s grand strategy—a move so complex that only he fully understands it. Perhaps he is playing the long game, maneuvering in ways that seem chaotic now but will make sense later. But if that’s the case, he has yet to let the people in on his master plan. Right now, his supporters are left feeling abandoned, confused, and questioning if they have been fighting for a cause or just fueling one man’s personal battle.

Maybe Zimbabweans should just focus on their own personal struggles—school fees, rising costs, making ends meet—and not be dragged into political theatrics that seem to serve individual grievances more than the collective good.