Chief Murinye Explains Why Riverton School Opening Was Blocked

By Advent Shoko

Chief Murinye born Ephias Munodawafa has broken his silence following the dramatic blockade of Riverton Academy Murinye Extension, a confrontation that drew national attention and ultimately led to his summons to the office of Masvingo Provincial Affairs Minister Ezra Chadzamira

At the heart of the dispute, the traditional leader insists, is one simple issue: legality.

According to Chief Murinye, there is currently no legally recognised school called Riverton Academy Murinye Extension. He says the institution has not been established in line with Zimbabwean law and remains unregistered with the Ministry of Primary and Secondary Education.

“The due process was not followed,” the chief said, explaining that while an application was made to the local council, it is incomplete and has never received final approval. As the highest traditional authority in the Mrinye communities, he stressed that no development project can legally proceed without his authorisation.

The chief dismissed claims that he acted unlawfully or maliciously, arguing that his intervention was meant to protect communal land and local villagers from exploitation.

“You cannot just wake up, allocate yourself land in the grasslands and start developing for personal aggrandizement at the expense of poor villagers,” he said, accusing the school’s developer of acting outside the law and ignoring repeated warnings.

Chief Murinye said he and other traditional leaders attempted to engage the developer on several occasions, but construction continued despite advice to halt operations. With no licence from the Ministry of Education and no traditional approval, he described the institution as an illegal school, leaving him with no option but to act.

The situation escalated when villagers blocked access to the school, a move the chief said came after he discovered that two village heads had allegedly been bribed and promised land in already congested villages. He later disciplined the implicated leaders, opting for fines rather than dismissal, citing it as a first offence.

Beyond legality, Chief Murinye raised serious concerns about access and affordability. He revealed that the school was charging fees of up to US$800 per child, a figure he says is completely out of reach for families in the Mrinye communities.

“If they struggle to pay US$48 at a primary school, how will they afford US$800?” he asked, questioning who the school was really meant to serve.

The chief said the land on which the school was built remains communal land, unlawfully appropriated without the consent of traditional authorities. He warned against the dangerous culture of tolerating illegality simply because a project has already been completed, comparing the situation to illegal housing developments driven by land barons.

However, Chief Murinye confirmed that he later lifted the blockade after intervention from the resident minister, who requested that learners be allowed temporary access while authorities formally address the school’s legal status.

“I complied in good faith,” he said, adding that any closure, if warranted, should follow official government procedures.

Responding to criticism and online attacks, the chief invoked Section 283 of the Constitution, which affirms the independence of traditional leaders in the execution of their duties. He insisted that his actions were lawful, measured and motivated solely by the need to protect his people.

Chief Murinye said he remains open to dialogue and investment, provided it is done properly.

“If he wants to build a school, he can come the right way. We will sit together and identify suitable land,” he said, adding that he would even allow learners to continue temporarily as relocation discussions take place.

For the chief, the message is clear: development is welcome, but illegality will never be blessed.