HARARE — ZANU PF loyalist and political commentator Rutendo Matinyarare has ignited a heated debate on social media after urging Zimbabweans to openly discuss possible constitutional reforms relating to gay rights, arguing that freedom of speech allows such conversations even on contentious issues.
Matinyarare’s comments came in response to an online discussion in which she maintained that, in what she described as an “educated and civilised society”, difficult topics should not be suppressed but debated openly, with society ultimately deciding what it will and will not tolerate.
Her position immediately drew sharp reactions from other commentators, some of whom insisted that the matter was conclusively settled by the adoption of Zimbabwe’s 2013 Constitution. One respondent argued that “98 percent of Zimbabweans voted ‘Yes’ to the constitution”, implying that the national consensus reflected in the referendum closed the door on further debate around issues such as gay rights.
Matinyarare pushed back, questioning whether constitutional endorsement negates ongoing public discourse. “Does that then mean the discussion can’t be had when the constitution protects freedom of speech?” she asked, reframing the issue as one of democratic engagement rather than legal endorsement.
In more controversial remarks, Matinyarare alleged that homosexuality in Zimbabwe is often practised covertly by some prominent and powerful figures, while remaining taboo in public discourse. She claimed this culture of silence enables the victimisation and exploitation of young people, who are allegedly unable to report abuses because of stigma and fear.
I think in an educated and civilized society the discussion must be allowed to happen, and let society unequivocally choose what it will and will not tolerate.
— Rutendo Matinyarare (@matinyarare) January 6, 2026
Her assertions provoked strong rebuttals. A commentator identifying as mmatigari dismissed the argument outright, stating: “We are civilised and educated and should have no time for such nonsense. It’s the woke mind virus starting to eat into our society and taking our focus from more important things.” The same commentator emphasised that homosexuality is illegal in Zimbabwe and should not be normalised through public debate.
However, not all responses rejected Matinyarare’s call for discussion. Another social media user, while disagreeing with her on several issues, argued that the topic should nonetheless be openly addressed. The commentator pointed to what they described as an openly gay social venue along Nelson Mandela Avenue in Harare, suggesting inconsistency between the law and its enforcement.
“So we either legalise it or enforce the existing laws to their fullest,” the commentator wrote, adding a legal nuance to the debate by arguing that homosexuality is “unconstitutional rather than illegal”, noting that the two concepts are not identical in legal terms.
The exchange has underscored deep divisions within Zimbabwean society over sexuality, constitutional interpretation and cultural values. While the Constitution of Zimbabwe protects freedom of expression, it also reflects conservative social norms, leaving little political appetite for reform on issues related to gay rights.
Matinyarare’s comments, and the reactions they provoked, highlight the tension between constitutional law, social practice and public debate in Zimbabwe, where questions of sexuality remain highly sensitive and politically charged.
