Opposition MDC leader Nelson Chamisa is in Botswana, for what he described as part of his ‘regional engagement’.
His party has defended his foreign trips saying it was just two trips in 6 months compared to President Emmerson Mnangagwa’s three trips in five days.
Having kept a tight lead on his West African journey a few weeks ago, Chamisa took to Twitter, to announce he was in neighbouring Botswana.
“I’m grateful for the warm welcome I have received in Gaborone, where I’m currently visiting as part of our regional engagements, as we seek an urgent solution to our challenges as Zimbabweans,” Chamisa said.
“We are part of the bigger African family. African counsel and support is fundamental. I am also humbled by the kindness and empathy shown by our neighbours at a time in tragedy in Zimbabwe.”
Chamisa did not indicate who he would meet while in Botswana.
The opposition leader who continues to claim he won last year’s presidential elections despite failing to prove his case before the Constitutional Court added:
“We are one people and we share the burden of our challenges. That is why we engage and share counsel, helping us see the whole picture and our respective place and role.”
The opposition has been castigating Mnangagwa over his endless foreign trip, gobbling State funds, hiring private jets but has defended Chamisa’s foreign trips.
“There is no comparison,” MDC spokesperson Jacob Mafume told NewZimbabwe.com.
“He has not had more than two trips out of the country, Mr Mnangagwa has had three trips in five days. He (Mnangagwa) has had them in luxury jets, our president travels economy class on normal flights.”
Last month Chamisa embarked on a whilrwind tour of West and East Africa in a secret diplomatic offensive that his party has refused to shed light on to date.
On the other hand, Presidential spokesperson George Charamba has argued “diplomacy does not come cheap.”
Charamba argues the trips are necessary given Mnangagwa is marketing Zimbabwe as an investment destination and the citizens must assess his trips against benefits accrued, not from a cost perspective.
Source : New Zimbabwe