DANet Scales Up 50k Houses, 200k to Go : Self-Imposed Journalists Maxwell Haitengeswi Nyika Battles the Judiciary Bench

By Staff Reporter

Court judgments may disappoint one party and vindicate another. That is why courts exist: to resolve disputes according to law, not influence or public-relations campaigns.

Commentary surrounding the legal disputes involving Destiny of Afrika Network (DANet), its founder and president Rev Dr Obedia Musindo and former project official Wilson Masokovere raises an important question

The question follows criticism attributed to blogger Maxwell Haitengeswi Nyika, particularly of decisions that have not favoured Masokowere.

Journalists may criticise judgments. But criticism becomes problematic when courts are praised when they favour one litigant and portrayed as biased or captured when they do not.

The judiciary is not a popularity contest

Section 164 of Zimbabwe’s Constitution provides that courts are independent and subject only to the Constitution and the law. They must act impartially and without fear, favour or prejudice.

A litigant is not entitled to win simply because he believes his case is strong. An unfavourable judgment is not automatically evidence of judicial capture.

The proper remedies are appeal, review, rescission or other procedures provided by law.

If a commentator attacks judges when decisions go against a preferred litigant but praises the courts when outcomes favour that litigant, readers may question whether the commentary is analytical or partisan.

A court reporter may challenge legal reasoning, question procedures and expose contradictions. But allegations that courts are biased or captured require evidence, not disappointment.

The relevant question is not whose side a commentator supports, but whether the same legal standard is applied to every decision.

The role of media regulation and professional accountability

The Zimbabwe Media Commission and any other competent media-regulatory or professional bodies should assess properly documented complaints concerning individuals presenting themselves as journalists, including Maxwell Haitengeswi Nyika. Any such assessment should verify relevant credentials, professional status and adherence to applicable ethical and legal standards.

Where reporting or commentary is alleged to be threatening, harassing, misleading, inflammatory or calculated to provoke social disorder, regulators and law-enforcement agencies should examine the evidence objectively and through due process.

Claims that such conduct undermines public confidence in the judiciary or portrays judicial services as foolish should not be treated as established facts without verification.

The appropriate focus should be on accuracy, sourcing, impartiality, disclosure of interests, right of reply, corrections and whether published material distinguishes fact from opinion. Regulatory scrutiny must remain fair, independent and consistent, applying the same standards to Nyika, DANet, Masokowere and all other parties.

The Masokowere question?

The history of Masokowere’s relationship with DANet also requires documentary scrutiny.

DANet says its housing programme began in 2002 and has expanded across Zimbabwe. Public reports have cited projects in Harare, Chitungwiza, Mutare, Chegutu, Kadoma, Bindura, Chinhoyi and Marondera. In 2025, Rev Musindo said DANet had assisted more than 50,000 people and was targeting 200,000 housing units by 2030.

If Masokowere or his supporters claim legal standing in relation to DANet, its housing trust or specific projects, the basis should be shown through trust deeds, appointment records, registration documents, agreements, minutes and court findings.

The same documentary standard must apply to DANet’s own claims.

What the court record says?

In February 2026, The Herald reported that Justice Jacob Manzunzu dismissed an urgent chamber application by Masokowere seeking to halt enforcement of an earlier ruling concerning his dismissal from DANet. The application was struck off the roll for failing to meet the urgency threshold, with punitive costs awarded.

Whatever one’s view of the decision, it remains a court ruling. It may be analysed or challenged through legal channels, but should not be rewritten as proof that the judiciary is compromised.

There is a difference between saying a judge made an error of law and claiming the judiciary is biased because a preferred litigant lost.

The courts should favour the law

The judiciary should favour neither DANet nor Masokowere. It should apply the law.

If DANet is wrong, the courts should say so. If Masokowere is wrong, they should say so. That is judicial independence.

The legal dispute should not obscure Zimbabwe’s housing crisis.

Government has repeatedly called for cooperation among the public sector, private developers, financial institutions and other stakeholders. Minister Zhemu Soda has described the housing deficit as an ongoing challenge, while President Emmerson Mnangagwa has placed housing within the Vision 2030 agenda.

DANet’s stated target of 200,000 homes by 2030 therefore deserves serious examination. Its model reportedly targets people who struggle to access conventional mortgage finance, including low-income earners, teachers, nurses, civil servants and informal traders.

That scrutiny should cover land ownership, beneficiary records, finances, approvals, infrastructure, governance and construction standards. It should be evidence-based and apply to all sides.

Selective outrage praising courts when they deliver favourable outcomes and condemning them when they do notweakens journalism and public confidence.

Media regulators, including the Zimbabwe Media Commission, should investigate properly documented complaints fairly and without presuming wrongdoing. They should examine accuracy, verification, impartiality, disclosure of interests, right of reply and correction practices.

Allegations of threats, harassment or incitement must likewise be assessed objectively, through evidence and due process. The same standards must apply to DANet and its supporters.

Protecting confidence in the courts

Zimbabweans rely on courts to resolve disputes involving property, contracts, businesses, families and criminal accusations.

If every unpopular judgment is described as evidence of judicial capture, confidence in the justice system is eroded. Section 164 requires impartial application of the law, not decisions that everyone likes.

Beyond the personalities

The DANet dispute should be about more than Musindo, Masokowere or Nyika. It should test whether organisational disputes can be resolved lawfully, whether housing projects can survive leadership conflicts and whether journalism can hold every side accountable without becoming partisan.

DANet says it wants to deliver 200,000 homes by 2030. Government says housing requires collective action.

While personalities trade accusations, thousands of Zimbabweans continue to wait for something more important than a social-media argument:

a place they can call home.

The law should settle disputes through established processes. Journalism should investigate, verify, question and inform—not decide cases before the courts do.