Harare – Beneath the veneer of moral guardianship, a more intricate and politically charged narrative appears to be unfolding in Zimbabwe’s Parliament. Recent calls to regulate social media, spearheaded by Zvimba South legislator Honourable Malinganiso, have cast a spotlight on popular influencers Hulengende and Malloti. While the public discourse frames this as a necessary measure against “moral decay” and drug abuse, an in-depth investigation suggests a calculated “digital crackdown” may be underway, strategically timed ahead of the crucial 2028 or 2030 elections.
The Parliamentary Outcry: Moral Guardians or Political Strategists?
The recent parliamentary session saw Zvimba South legislator Honourable Taurai Dexter Malinganiso deliver a scathing indictment of social media influencers, specifically naming dancehall artist Hulengende and socialite Malloti, also known as Chimonyo. Speaking in the National Assembly on Tuesday, 18th March 2026, under a point of national interest, Malinganiso expressed profound concern over what he described as a growing and troubling counterforce undermining national efforts to preserve the moral fabric of the nation.
Malinganiso did not mince words, accusing these individuals of using platforms such as TikTok, Instagram, and Facebook to openly promote and normalise drug and substance abuse among the youth. He highlighted the use of explicit and vulgar language, particularly in vernacular expressions, which he argued erodes societal values. The legislator further claimed that the public display and glorification of illegal substances, including cannabis, directly violates the country’s laws. He also pointed to the increasing misuse of prescription medicines like broncleer, codeine, and benylin, which are being repurposed as recreational drugs.
One of the most disturbing allegations made by Malinganiso involved instances where such conduct was performed in the presence of children. He specifically cited cases where Hulengende and Malloti allegedly used drugs in the presence of their newborn baby, thereby normalising deviant behaviour within the domestic space. Furthermore, Malinganiso claimed there were recorded incidents of public figures distributing illegal substances to the public during live broadcasts, including an artist giving a fan a marijuana plant, which he viewed as trivialising both the law and the grave consequences of substance abuse.
“Parliament is not only a custodian of economic and political discourse, but also a guardian of the nation’s moral compass. Social conduct, cultural norms and public behaviour are not peripheral issues as they are central to nation-building,” Malinganiso asserted, warning that failure to act could reverse national progress. He stressed that if left unchecked, this “digital glorification of substance abuse will undo the gains made by the Second Republic and entrench a culture of indiscipline, lawlessness and moral decay among our youths”.
The MP called for urgent measures, including tighter regulation and monitoring of harmful online content, stronger enforcement of drug and cyber laws, and stiff penalties for offenders. He also advocated for collaboration between the government, regulatory authorities, and social media platforms to curb the spread of such content and promote responsible digital citizenship, where influencers are held accountable for the societal impact of their conduct.
Hulengende and Malloti: Scapegoats in a Larger Game?
Hulengende, a prominent Zimdancehall artist, and Malloti Rose, a contentious socialite, command significant influence, particularly among Zimbabwe’s younger generation. Their content, often characterised by its raw and unfiltered nature, resonates with a demographic that increasingly turns to social media for entertainment and information. However, the accusations levelled against them by Honourable Malinganiso raise critical questions: Is their content truly a threat to public health, or are they being strategically utilised as “scapegoats” to justify a broader agenda of censorship and control?
Malloti, in particular, has a history of controversy. Reports indicate she is wanted by South African authorities in connection with a 2017 armed robbery case. Her personal life, including relationship dramas and a recent pregnancy, has often been a subject of public discussion and online trending. While these aspects of her public persona might fuel the “moral decay” argument, it is crucial to examine whether the parliamentary focus on these individuals serves a purpose beyond genuine concern for public welfare.
The Cyber and Data Protection Act: A Tool for Control?
The Zimbabwean government’s legislative framework for digital spaces includes the Cyber and Data Protection Act [Chapter 12:07]. This Act, while ostensibly designed to regulate data privacy and combat cybercrime, has been viewed by critics as a potential instrument for suppressing dissent and monitoring digital activists. Recent regulations in 2024 and 2025 have further expanded its reach, requiring the licensing of data controllers and the appointment of Data Protection Officers.
The proposed new regulations, as suggested by MP Malinganiso, would significantly broaden the Act’s scope, potentially criminalising any “unregulated” social media post. This expansion could transform the vibrant and often critical online discourse into a state-controlled echo chamber, where any voice deviating from the official narrative risks legal repercussions. The vagueness of terms like “inappropriate language” and “eroding societal values” could provide a broad pretext for silencing critical voices under the guise of maintaining public order and morality.
The Hidden Agenda: Elections, Succession, and a “Solid Plan”
The timing of this parliamentary push to regulate social media influencers is particularly noteworthy, coinciding with significant political developments in Zimbabwe. The country is gearing up for the 2028 or 2030 elections, and the ruling ZANU-PF party has already made moves to consolidate power. In February 2026, the cabinet approved draft legislation to amend the constitution, seeking to extend presidential terms from five to seven years. This move could potentially allow President Emmerson Mnangagwa, currently 83, to remain in office until 2030, despite having served two five-year terms.
These proposed constitutional changes also include provisions for the president to be elected by Parliament rather than through a direct popular vote, and the appointment of ten additional senators, further strengthening the ruling party’s control over the legislative process. Opposition figures have vehemently condemned these moves, with Jameson Timba, a senior leader in the opposition, describing the cabinet’s approval of the changes as “politically destabilising”.
Against this backdrop, the focus on social media influencers like Hulengende and Malloti takes on a new dimension. The government’s “anti-drug” rhetoric, while seemingly aimed at public health, could be a convenient smokescreen for a deeper fear: the mobilisation of opposition figures online. Opposition leader Nelson Chamisa has recently claimed to possess a “solid plan” with a clear timeline to address the political crisis gripping Zimbabwe and to defend the constitution against what he perceives as its capture.
The digital space has become a crucial arena for political discourse and activism in Zimbabwe. Reports from Freedom House’s Freedom on the Net 2025 indicate a systematic intimidation of digital activists and journalists, with several arrests and detentions for online content. This ongoing crackdown on media freedom and online expression suggests a concerted effort to control the narrative and suppress dissenting voices ahead of the upcoming electoral cycle. The targeting of influencers, who command significant youth followings, could be an attempt to neutralise potential avenues for opposition mobilisation and critical commentary.
Conclusion: A Precarious Future for Digital Freedom
The parliamentary debate surrounding Hulengende and Malloti, while presented as a moral crusade, appears to be intricately linked to broader political manoeuvres aimed at consolidating power and controlling public discourse. The expansion of the Cyber and Data Protection Act, coupled with the systematic intimidation of digital activists and the ruling party’s efforts to extend presidential terms, paints a concerning picture for digital freedom in Zimbabwe.
The question remains whether Hulengende and Malloti are genuine threats to public health or merely convenient symbols in a larger political game. Regardless, their cases serve as a stark reminder of the precarious state of free speech in the digital age, particularly in contexts where political power is being aggressively asserted. As Zimbabwe approaches its next electoral cycle, the battle for control over online narratives is set to intensify, transforming the vibrant social media space into a potential battleground for political influence and freedom of expression.
Follow @MyZimbabweNews
