Tinotenda Hove – The administration of President Emmerson Mnangagwa is facing mounting criticism after announcing plans to tighten control over medical aid companies, with many warning the move could deepen tensions in Zimbabwe’s already fragile health sector.

Government spokesperson Nick Mangwana sparked controversy in a statement posted on X on Thursday, outlining plans for a new Statutory Instrument aimed at restricting medical aid firms from operating as both insurers and service providers.

“We are coming up with a Statutory Instrument to stop Medical Aids from also providing services, as there is a serious conflict of interest threatening the existence of independent medical practice in Zimbabwe. Being the insurer and the provider has resulted in numerous challenges that we seek to correct,” Mangwana said.

However, the hardline stance has drawn backlash from stakeholders who see it as heavy-handed and potentially disruptive. Critics argue the government appears more focused on confrontation than collaboration, raising fears of instability in healthcare delivery.

Mangwana did not hold back in his remarks, accusing some companies of resisting the proposed changes for self-serving reasons. “Some medical aids are fighting this SI by hook and crook because they have been benefitting from the clear conflict of interest and anti-competitive nature of this arrangement,” he said.

The statement also took an unexpected swipe at the media, further fueling debate. “We notice that the state media seems to have been dragged into this and have not even cared to hear the Govt’s side. We are very disappointed to say the least,” Mangwana added.

Observers say the government’s increasingly combative tone risks alienating both the private sector and the public. Instead of offering reassurance, the remarks have amplified concerns about policy direction and transparency.

Mangwana went further, launching a critique on how opinions are published in the media. “Furthermore, on the question of authorship: an opinion must have an author. How can we have an opinion that is said to be done by a ‘correspondent’? Whose opinion is that?” he questioned.

He continued, “When a ‘correspondent’ is listed instead of a named individual, the reader cannot assess bias, motive, or accountability. Is it the newspaper speaking? A hired public relations firm? An anonymous corporate interest?”

While government insists the measures are meant to restore fairness, critics argue the aggressive rhetoric and sweeping proposals risk undermining confidence in both the healthcare system and public institutions.
“In matters of public health policy, where billions of dollars and the viability of independent medical practice hang in the balance, anonymity is unacceptable,” Mangwana said. “If an opinion is worth publishing, it is worth signing.”

Despite these justifications, skepticism remains high, with many questioning whether the proposed crackdown will solve existing problems or simply create new ones in an already strained sector.