Why bar media from wedding?

HARARE - President Robert Mugabe and his family were joined by millions of Zimbabweans at the weekend in celebrating the wedding of their daughter Bona — to Simba Chikore.

There was every reason to celebrate — this was the wedding of the president’s daughter and eldest child.

Mugabe himself had never thought he would live to see this wedding.

“We are happy. I never thought that I was going to live to see my daughter getting married. We were told our life expectancy in Africa is 56,” he told Zimbabwe in a televised birthday speech to mark his 90th birthday.

Bona’s wedding was not only for Mugabe, his family, friends and relatives who attended the colourful ceremony at his plush private residence in Borrowdale.

The fact that most of the important parts of the wedding were televised to millions of viewers around Zimbabwe, supports this.

But the decision to bar the private media from covering Mugabe’s daughter’s wedding is strange as it is suspicious.

The same private media had covered Mugabe’s birthday festivities a week earlier and respectfully acknowledged his values to the 21st February Movement — the outfit that celebrates his life while at the same time seeking to transmit good messages to children and youths.

While we respect that this was an event for those invited we still take umbrage at the decision to only allow the State media to cover the event.

The same spirit that prevailed in allowing our colleagues should have been the same extended to us.

We cannot hide our annoyance at this divide and rule tactic which, at most, was misplaced given the signals coming from Mugabe and his family.

For more than a decade, a few zealots and sycophants within Zanu PF and the Mugabe administration succeeded in putting a wedge between the private media and the president.

We thought this was now a thing of the past when considering the re-engagement efforts that have been made between government and the stakeholders to mend the once fractious ties.

Allowing the private media to be part of the event was not going to take off the gloss from the wedding, in all honesty.

Maybe as Zimbabweans we are now used to suspicion as part of informing our decisions.

But whatever informed the decision to bar the private media was regrettable.

And it has turned out to be a fly in an ointment!

Comments (5)

If you are not INVITED it means you are not wanted kana mwana wako azochata usamukokewo period.

mike muchapondwa - 5 March 2014

Mike wataura zvandanga ndichida kutaura saka handichatauri

juwachuwa - 5 March 2014

this was a private wedding Mr writer.bona n simba are not public figures and dis was der wedding not the president's wedding so l dnt c the reason y bona n simba cldnt exercise their ryt to invite thos they wnted.l think yo article is misplaced n wth a hidden agenda.

pstor - 5 March 2014

this was a private wedding Mr writer.bona n simba are not public figures and dis was der wedding not the president's wedding so l dnt c the reason y bona n simba cldnt exercise their ryt to invite thos they wnted.l think yo article is misplaced n wth a hidden agenda.

pstor - 5 March 2014

You are all mentally deranged. How could it have been private when they had invited the state media. Most of the resources that were used at that wedding were public assets, be they vehicles, buses, and personel. If it was private why did they use public assets. As far as I know Simba Chikore and Bona are not employed by govt. What is wrong with your logic? The wedding was President Mugabe's project. Him being a public figure and the liberal/extensive use of public resources qualifies it to be a public event worthy of scrutiny and exposure by all in the media. What is private about the whole event then? Truly private weddings are held entirely and exclusively at the expense of the bride and groom and their families and close associates or friends and not at the expense of the fiscus as was the case with Bona 's wedding.

Rook - 5 March 2014

Post a comment

Readers are kindly requested to refrain from using abusive, vulgar, racist, tribalistic, sexist, discriminatory and hurtful language when posting their comments on the Daily News website.
Those who transgress this civilised etiquette will be barred from contributing to our online discussions.
- Editor

Your email address will not be shared.