The Tungwarara publicity machine: questions over a journalist, a leaked call and a relentless stream of praise

The public record is beginning to tell an uncomfortable story about the space where political influence, corporate publicity and journalism meet.

Across a series of posts published by the Facebook page identified as Zimgrounds TV, Tungwarara, his business interests and government-linked programmes appear repeatedly in a stream of favourable messaging. At the centre of the controversy is an alleged leaked telephone call in which Tungwarara is reportedly heard speaking with a journalist who asks about recent Senate appointments. The recording, shared publicly by THE PATRIOT, has intensified questions about whether the journalist is merely reporting on Tungwarara—or operating within a political and financial relationship that the public has not been told about.

The evidence reviewed so far does not conclusively prove that Tungwarara pays or sponsors the journalist. It does, however, reveal a pattern that demands scrutiny: a media-branded page carrying corporate statements issued in the name of Prevail Group of Companies, political messaging praising President Emmerson Mnangagwa and the Second Republic, and promotional material about government programmes. The unanswered question is whether this is independent journalism, public-relations work presented as journalism, or an undisclosed publicity arrangement.

One of the supplied posts, published under the Zimgrounds TV identity, carries a lengthy condolence statement issued in the name of Prevail Group of Companies. It says the company is mourning victims of the Lake Kariba ferry disaster and expresses solidarity with communities in Kariba and Mashonaland West.

There is nothing inherently improper about a media organisation publishing a corporate statement. But the public deserves to know what it is reading. Was the statement clearly supplied by the company? Was it paid for? Was it part of an ongoing communications contract? Or did the page independently decide to publish it as news?

A separate post dated 10 August at 3:40 p.m. celebrates National Heroes Day and praises President Mnangagwa’s leadership. Its language promotes Vision 2030, economic empowerment, infrastructure development and the Second Republic, ending with the hashtag #Vision2030.

Other supplied Zimgrounds TV reels promote an infrastructure upgrade at Mbuya Nehanda Maternity Ward under the Presidential Hospital Rehabilitation programme and describe the Presidential Borehole Drilling and Installation Scheme as advancing across the country.

Taken individually, these posts may be defended as ordinary political or corporate communications. Taken together, they create a more troubling editorial picture: a page presented as a media platform repeatedly amplifying the interests of a politically connected businessman and the government establishment.

On 19 August 2026, THE PATRIOT published a video described as “a leaked phone call between Presidential Special Advisor, Dr Paul Tungwarara and a journalist.” The post displayed a 2:51-minute media attachment and had recorded 5.1K views at the time of review.

According to the account provided to this publication, the journalist asks Tungwarara how he feels about the recent appointment of senators, apparently against the backdrop of Tungwarara being left out. Tungwarara is reportedly heard responding that he was simply doing his job as a ZANU PF member.

If authentic, the exchange would raise serious questions about the boundary between political activity and journalism. A journalist may hold political views. A journalist may also perform communications work. But when the same person is presented as an independent journalist while allegedly receiving support from a senior political actor, the public is entitled to ask whether the news operation is independent—or whether it is a vehicle for influence.

The recording must still be authenticated. The voices must be identified, the original file preserved, and the full context established. But the fact that the alleged call has circulated publicly, alongside the visible pattern of Tungwarara-related material on Zimgrounds TV, makes the matter too significant to dismiss as mere online gossip.

A credible investigation should identify the awards, the awarding bodies, the dates, the categories and the work for which each award was granted. It should also establish whether the journalist currently works as an independent reporter, a political commentator, a public-relations practitioner, a party-aligned communicator or some combination of these roles.

A professional reputation cannot answer the central question. In fact, a strong reputation makes transparency more important, not less. The more authority a journalist commands, the greater the public interest in knowing whether political or commercial relationships influence his output.

The allegation is not merely that Zimgrounds TV publishes content favourable to Tungwarara. The more serious allegation is that the journalist connected to the page is being paid or sponsored by Tungwarara while presenting himself as a journalist.

That claim requires evidence. The investigation should seek contracts, invoices, payment records, messages, travel arrangements, employment documents, admissions and testimony from people with direct knowledge of the relationship. The publishing pattern should also be audited over a defined period rather than described only through selected examples.

Frequency alone is not proof of payment. But frequency combined with corporate statements, political praise, a direct personal relationship and an alleged conversation about political work would be sufficient to justify a serious public-interest investigation.

The central issue is disclosure. If the journalist is paid to produce communications material, the audience should be told. If Zimgrounds TV accepts sponsored content from Prevail or related interests, it should be labelled. If the page is functioning as a political communications outlet rather than an independent news platform, it should not trade on the public’s assumption that all its content is journalism.