Vice President Constantino Chiwenga recently sparked outrage at the Zimbabwe International Trade Fair when he falsely claimed that bond notes were a relic of Ian Smith’s Rhodesian regime. This is completely inaccurate. The bond notes were not born of colonial times. They were a recent financial creation introduced by the ZANU PF government as an attempt to stabilize a failing economy. Like so many of the regime’s initiatives, it backfired spectacularly. The bond notes collapsed under the weight of inflation, corruption, and mismanagement and had to be quietly removed from circulation.
Chiwenga’s misleading remarks have not only distorted the truth but have further eroded public trust at a time when trust is already in short supply. As the government rolls out a new currency, the Zimbabwe Gold or ZiG, citizens are left trying to make sense of a chaotic monetary landscape riddled with lies and propaganda. Chiwenga’s attempt to rewrite history by linking bond notes to the Unilateral Declaration of Independence is a dangerous move. It reflects a broader pattern where ZANU PF officials use historical revisionism to cover up their failures and distract the nation from present-day crises.
Adding to the confusion, ZANU PF spokesperson Chris Mutsvangwa falsely described ZiG as a gold currency. This is not only untrue but shows a troubling lack of understanding of both history and economics. Zimbabwe has a long tradition of gold mining, yes, but at no point in its history did the country use gold as a currency. During colonial times, Zimbabwe participated in the gold standard like many other territories. Gold was traded, but the economy was anchored in agriculture, not gold coins or bullion. The idea that gold ever served as the national currency is a complete fabrication.
The misinformation campaign does not end there. Reserve Bank of Zimbabwe Governor John Mushayavanhu recently claimed that ZiG was developed with the involvement of the World Bank. He went so far as to say that criticism of ZiG is equivalent to criticizing the World Bank itself. This kind of rhetoric is deeply irresponsible. It attempts to shield a controversial policy from scrutiny by invoking the name of an international institution. To make matters worse, Mushayavanhu openly admitted that the much-publicized claim that bond notes were backed by a US$200 million Afrexim Bank facility was a lie. Such admissions confirm what the public already suspects. There is no transparency. There is no accountability. There is only spin.
The real history of Zimbabwe’s monetary evolution is complex but well documented. Dr. Tinashe Nyamunda of the University of Glasgow has provided a more accurate narrative. Zimbabwe’s economic systems transitioned from Sterling during the colonial era to the Rhodesian dollar, which was pegged to the British pound until independence in 1980. The Rhodesian dollar came into being due to Rhodesia’s exclusion from the Sterling area and the IMF, not as a sign of economic stability but as a response to political isolation. These facts matter because they reveal that the foundations of currency in Zimbabwe have always been tied to political maneuvering, not economic strength.
Now, as the country struggles to understand what ZiG really is and whether it will last, the public deserves clarity. Without truthful leadership and informed debate, any new currency is doomed to fail. The ZiG is already facing an uphill battle. Misleading statements from the top only add weight to the load it must carry. For any currency to inspire confidence, it must be introduced with honesty, transparency, and respect for historical truth.
Zimbabwe cannot afford another financial illusion. The people have paid the price too many times. Setting the record straight is not just an intellectual exercise. It is a political necessity. Lies will not save this economy. Only truth will.
About The Author
