Innocent Mujeri
Zimbabwe should welcome scrutiny of its cultural-rights record. What the country should not accept, however, is a predetermined narrative disguised as an independent assessment.
The ongoing visit by United Nations Special Rapporteur in the field of Cultural Rights, Professor Alexandra Xanthaki, presents precisely such a test. Xanthaki is in Zimbabwe from 28 September to 10 October 2026 on a mission agreed with the Government to examine the implementation of cultural rights.
The United Nations’ own records confirm the dates of the visit.
On paper, the mission is straightforward: listen to Government, traditional leaders, communities, civil society and other stakeholders before making recommendations.
But the question Zimbabweans should be asking is whether Xanthaki has approached the country with the open mind expected of a UN independent expert—or whether she arrived carrying a familiar international human-rights template through which Zimbabwe is already being viewed.
First, who is Alexandra Xanthaki?
Understanding the person conducting the assessment matters.
Xanthaki is a Greek-born legal academic based in the United Kingdom and a professor of law at Brunel University London. Her academic work has focused extensively on cultural rights, minority rights, indigenous peoples and international human-rights law. She was appointed UN Special Rapporteur in the field of Cultural Rights in 2021.
This background gives her considerable expertise. But it also provides an important lens through which her work should be understood. Her professional focus has frequently been on communities describing themselves as marginalised, indigenous or excluded from cultural and political systems.
That is not a criticism of her qualifications. It is a reminder that no investigator approaches a country without assumptions, frameworks and intellectual priorities.
And Zimbabwe is not an easy country to fit into simplistic categories of oppressor and oppressed.
It is a diverse African country with 16 officially recognised languages, a constitutional obligation to treat those languages equitably and a specific constitutional requirement for the State to promote their use and development.
That reality deserves more than a checklist.
Zimbabwe has been doing something about cultural inclusion
There is a tendency in some international assessments to identify a problem and then behave as though identifying the problem is itself proof that nothing has been done about it.
Zimbabwe’s experience tells a different story.
Take community broadcasting.
Zimbabwe now has 15 licensed community radio stations reaching an estimated two to three million people, particularly in rural and underserved communities. UNESCO says the development of these stations has been supported through cooperation between UNESCO and the Government of Zimbabwe, including the Broadcasting Authority of Zimbabwe and Transmedia.
Community radio has created platforms for minority and indigenous languages in places where communities historically had limited access to broadcasting. Academic research on Zimbabwe’s community-radio sector documents stations such as Lyeja FM in Hwange, Twasumpuka FM in Binga, Radio Bukalanga in Plumtree, Bayethe FM in Matobo, Ndau Community Radio in Mahenye and others. These stations have provided space for local languages, culture and community voices.
Even more telling is what happened in Chipinge only days before the Special Rapporteur’s visit entered its final phase.
On 24 September 2026, Ndau FM was officially launched with the participation of the Government of Zimbabwe, UNESCO, development partners and the community. The station broadcasts in Ndau and is specifically intended to expand access to information in the local language, strengthen community dialogue and connect rural communities with essential services. UNESCO itself describes the station as putting local voices and priorities at the centre of information sharing.
This is not theoretical cultural policy.
It is cultural rights being translated into practice.
And it is precisely the sort of evidence that should make it difficult for anyone to present Zimbabwe as a country indifferent to minority languages.
Consider Binga-born musician DT BiO Mudimba. His experience is instructive. Mudimba has publicly credited the Government’s inclusion of artists from across the country in national events with helping expand his career, networks and opportunities. His music also incorporates Tonga-language expression, including the use of Tonga alongside Shona and isiNdebele in communicating his message.
This is what cultural inclusion looks like in real life.
It is not perfect. It does not mean every artist receives equal opportunities. It does not mean every minority community is satisfied.
But it demonstrates that the story cannot honestly be reduced to one of permanent exclusion.
Then there is Heritage-Based Education 5.0
Perhaps one of the strongest answers to the cultural-rights narrative is found in Zimbabwe’s education system.
The country’s Heritage-Based Education 5.0 model deliberately seeks to root education, research, innovation and production in Zimbabwean realities.
And this is not merely Government propaganda.
In June 2026, an African union Commission delegation conducted a benchmarking and policy-learning mission specifically to assess Zimbabwe’s Heritage-Based Education 5.0 model. The AU described the model as an example of how education can be connected to innovation, productivity, industrialisation and sustainable development. The delegation visited universities, innovation hubs and TVET institutions to examine how the model was being implemented.
So, when the cultural-rights debate comes to Zimbabwe, why should the conversation begin and end with alleged marginalisation?
Why not ask how Zimbabwe is deliberately incorporating heritage into education?
Why not examine how indigenous knowledge is being brought into the national development conversation?
Why not investigate whether the country’s educational reforms are creating space for communities to preserve and transmit their cultural knowledge?
These are uncomfortable questions for a predetermined narrative because they introduce complexity.
The Matabeleland question
Xanthaki’s engagements in Matabeleland are particularly important.
Her itinerary has included Victoria Falls, Binga, Matopos, Khami Ruins and engagements with traditional leaders, councillors, residents, conservationists and other stakeholders. The City of Victoria Falls confirmed that she met council representatives, private-sector stakeholders, residents, conservationists and traditional leaders. Her wider mission has also included engagements with numerous Government ministries, the Chiefs’ Council, the Zimbabwe Human Rights Commission, parliamentary committees, National Museums and Monuments, the National Arts Council and other institutions.
There is nothing wrong with listening to communities in Matabeleland.
Indeed, it is necessary.
But there is a danger when Matabeleland is approached primarily through the vocabulary of grievance, exclusion and marginalisation, as though the region has no development story beyond its historical grievances.
Government’s own recent record demonstrates otherwise.
In 2026, Government reported projects in previously less-developed communities including Binga, Tsholotsho and Nkayi, alongside major infrastructure and social-development initiatives in Matabeleland. These included the Binga Registry Complex, the Hwange thermal power project, the Maphisa Stadium and housing initiatives in the region.
This is where the “leaving no one and no place behind” philosophy matters.
The Government’s argument is not that every problem has been solved. It is that development must deliberately reach communities that historically received less investment.
That distinction matters.
The danger of arriving with the conclusion already written
The concern, therefore, is not that Xanthaki should be prevented from criticising Zimbabwe.
She should not.
A credible Government should be able to withstand criticism.
The concern is whether the evidence will be weighed fairly.
If consultations in Matabeleland become primarily an exercise in collecting grievances, while Government’s interventions in education, broadcasting, infrastructure, heritage preservation and cultural development receive little attention, the resulting report will inevitably be incomplete.
Zimbabwe should therefore be especially alert to how the final report constructs its narrative.
Will it acknowledge the constitutional recognition of 16 languages?
Will it acknowledge the expansion of community broadcasting?
Will it acknowledge Ndau FM?
Will it acknowledge Heritage-Based Education 5.0?
Will it acknowledge the increasing national visibility of artists from minority communities?
Will it acknowledge the Government’s infrastructure and development programmes in previously underserved areas?
Or will all of these developments be reduced to footnotes, while the report concentrates on testimony from organisations whose political orientation is already strongly critical of Government?
The answers to these questions will determine whether the mission produces an assessment or merely reinforces a narrative.
Zimbabwe does not need lessons in its own identity
There is an even deeper issue here.
Zimbabweans have the right to define their cultural identity for themselves.
The country does not need an external expert to tell it that cultural diversity matters. Zimbabweans know this. Communities have preserved their languages, music, traditions, customs and histories for generations.
What the Government has increasingly attempted to do is provide a policy and institutional framework within which those cultures can survive and participate in national development.
That process is imperfect.
But imperfection is not failure.
Zimbabwe should therefore engage Xanthaki confidently, not defensively.
Government should place before her the evidence. It should challenge inaccuracies. It should demonstrate what has been achieved. Where shortcomings exist, it should acknowledge them and explain what is being done.
And when the report eventually arrives, Zimbabwe should judge it against the evidence.
If Xanthaki produces a report that recognises progress, while identifying areas requiring improvement, Zimbabwe should engage constructively.
But if she produces another document portraying the country exclusively through the lens of marginalisation, exclusion and alleged cultural suppression, Zimbabwe should have no hesitation in challenging it.
The Special Rapporteur may have the international platform.
But Zimbabwe has the facts.
The story of cultural rights in Zimbabwe cannot be written solely from consultation rooms, NGO submissions or historical grievances. It must also be written from the community radio station broadcasting in Ndau, the classroom implementing Heritage-Based Education 5.0, the artist from a minority community appearing on national platforms, the traditional leader participating in national policy discussions and the rural community finally receiving infrastructure that it has waited decades to see.
That is also Zimbabwe.
And if the Special Rapporteur is genuinely interested in cultural rights, she should be prepared to see—and acknowledge—all of it.
Because Zimbabwe does not need a predetermined verdict.
It deserves a fair assessment.
