University of Zimbabwe Faces Backlash Over Meagre Pay for Replacement Lecturers
Lecturers, represented by the Association of University Teachers , initiated an indefinite strike on 16 April, demanding a return to pre-2018 salary levels of US$2,250 per month for junior faculty. Currently, most earn less than US$300, supplemented by a Zimbabwe Gold component that, when converted, amounts to under US$200—an effective 87% pay cut.
The university's decision to recruit adjuncts at such low rates has been met with outrage from both academic and student communities. AUT leaders argue that the move undermines the quality of education and reflects a disregard for the welfare of educators. 'We have subsidised this university for more than seven years,' said AUT spokesperson Professor Obvious Vengeyi. 'On the contrary, they have plundered it.'
ADVERTISEMENT
The strike has led to significant disruptions, with many classes suspended and students expressing concern over the continuity of their education. Tafadzwa Katsande, a representative from the Zimbabwe National Student Union , voiced solidarity with the lecturers, stating, 'We understand your plight better because we are your children before you are our lecturers. Even if we don't attend classes for the whole semester, let it be so.'
The government's response has been mixed. Presidential Spokesperson George Charamba acknowledged the legitimacy of the lecturers' grievances, noting that President Emmerson Mnangagwa had approved a welfare proposal to address the issues. However, implementation has been delayed, leading to further frustration among the academic staff.
In an attempt to quell the unrest, UZ suspended several AUT leaders, including President Phillemon Munyaradzi Chamburuka and Treasurer Obvious Vengeyi, citing charges of inciting unrest. These suspensions were later revoked following legal challenges and public outcry. Vengeyi commented on the revocation, suggesting it was a tactic to distract from the core issue of fair remuneration.
The situation escalated when police arrested three lecturers during a peaceful protest at the university's main entrance. Those detained included Professor Vengeyi, Dr Desmond Ndedzu, and Group Captain Boncase Mwakorera. The arrests drew condemnation from various quarters, with critics accusing authorities of suppressing lawful demonstrations.
Despite these challenges, the AUT remains steadfast in its demands. Lecturers have withdrawn not only their teaching services but also their participation in research and administrative duties. They have also ceased using personal resources, such as laptops and mobile data, for university-related work.
The broader economic context in Zimbabwe, marked by hyperinflation and currency instability, has exacerbated the crisis. Many lecturers report struggling to afford basic necessities, with some unable to pay for their children's education or meet daily living expenses. The AUT has highlighted these hardships in communications with university management, emphasizing the urgent need for salary adjustments.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
ARN News Center
an hour ago
- ARN News Center
Israel demands release of all 50 Gaza hostages
Israel is demanding the release of all 50 hostages held in Gaza, Israeli public broadcaster Kan cited the prime minister's office as saying on Tuesday, as talks on a proposed deal envisaging a 60-day truce and release of half the hostages continue. Efforts to pause the fighting gained new momentum over the past week after Israel announced plans for a new offensive to seize control of Gaza City, and Egypt and Qatar have been pushing to restart indirect talks between the sides on a US-backed ceasefire plan. The deal is nearly identical to a proposal Washington put forward earlier this year, a spokesperson for mediator Qatar said on Tuesday. Hamas rejected that deal in July. Under the deal, ten Israeli hostages held in Gaza will be returned along with the bodies of 18 others, spread out over 60 days. Israel says that of 50 hostages held by Hamas and its allies, 20 are believed to be alive. In exchange, Israel will release 150 detained Palestinians it sentenced to life in prison and 50 Palestinians it sentenced to more than 15 years. For each body Hamas returns, Israel will return the bodies of 10 Palestinians. Israel will permit aid to enter Gaza with the involvement of the United Nations and the International Committee of the Red Cross. The proposal includes the release of 200 Palestinian convicts jailed in Israel and an unspecified number of imprisoned women and minors, in return for 10 living and 18 deceased hostages from Gaza, according to a Hamas official. Two Egyptian security sources confirmed the details, and added that Hamas has requested the release of hundreds of Gaza detainees as well. The proposal includes a partial withdrawal of Israeli forces, which presently control 75 per cent of Gaza and the entry of more humanitarian aid into the enclave, where a population of 2.2 million people is increasingly facing famine. The last round of indirect talks between the sides ended in deadlock in July, with the sides trading blame for the collapse. Israel had previously agreed to the outline, advanced by US special Middle East envoy Steve Witkoff, but negotiations faltered over some of its details.
The National
an hour ago
- The National
US targets more ICC prosecutors with sanctions
The US on Wednesday imposed sanctions on four more International Criminal Court officials, broadening its confrontational strategy to thwart the court's war crimes cases involving Israel. Those named in the sanctions are judges Kimberly Prost of Canada and Nicolas Yann Guillou of France, along with deputy prosecutors Nazhat Shameem Khan of Fiji and Mame Mandiaye Niang of Senegal. 'The United States has been clear and steadfast in our opposition to the ICC's politicisation, abuse of power, disregard for our national sovereignty, and illegitimate judicial overreach,' US Secretary of State Marco Rubio said in a statement. 'The court is a national security threat that has been an instrument for lawfare against the United States and our close ally Israel.' He added that those named in the sanctions directly engaged in efforts by the ICC 'to investigate, arrest, detain, or prosecute nationals of the United States or Israel, without the consent of either nation'. The US has long rejected the ICC's jurisdiction over its citizens and Israeli officials. The new measures follow sanctions imposed in June against four judges over their efforts to investigate or arrest American and Israeli citizens. Mr Rubio denounced the Hague-based tribunal as a 'bankrupt institution' and welcomed sanctions previously imposed on its top prosecutors for pursuing cases against Israeli leaders. He said Ms Prost is being designated for ruling to authorise the ICC's investigation into US personnel in Afghanistan. Mr Guillou is being designated for ruling to authorise the ICC's issuance of arrest warrants for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former minister of defence Yoav Gallant. Deputy prosecutors Khan and Niang are being designated for continuing to support 'illegitimate' ICC actions against Israel, including upholding the court's arrest warrants for Mr Netanyahu and Mr Gallant since they assumed leadership of the ICC's Office of the Prosecutor.
The National
3 hours ago
- The National
There's a new triangle in US foreign policy
This week's White House meetings on the Ukraine war have demonstrated how drastically the world has changed. The US president wants to broker a deal that ends the fighting but doesn't seem overly concerned about the details. As long as Donald Trump can claim the status of international peacemaker and perhaps win a much-coveted Nobel Peace Prize, he will probably be satisfied. It's unmistakable political theatre. Until now, in any such situation, there would be two camps: Russia versus a US-led western front backing Ukraine. But US policy has become so unrecognisable that there are now instead three poles – Russia, the US, and Ukraine backed by Europe – creating a triangle with Washington as the hypotenuse. That means valuable European leverage and energy that could be used to pressure Russia is being diverted to prevent the US president from abandoning Ukraine, Europe, Nato and traditional US national security doctrines. They're succeeding on that thus far, but there's no progress towards ending the conflict. Russian President Vladimir Putin appears happy to continue talks with the fighting ongoing, confident his far more numerous forces can wear down the Ukrainian military. He's concentrating on shifting Mr Trump's attention and rhetoric away from demands for an immediate ceasefire, with some apparent success. Mr Trump is instead focused on triangular talks between the three sides. Were this summit to take place, it could have a questionable outcome because neither party may be willing to make concessions to the other. They will only make concessions, if at all, to third parties such as the US or Europeans. It's difficult to imagine a positive result emerging from a trilateral meeting while negative scenarios abound. Were this summit to take place, it could have a questionable outcome because neither party may be willing to make concessions to the other The sensible approach would be what has been, not entirely unsuccessfully, pursued between Israel and Hamas, with third party negotiators talking to both delegations. But proximity talks between professional diplomats is box office poison. To Mr Trump – once a highly experienced and skilful television producer – a three-way summit may sound like a potential blockbuster. The cast is perfect if they play their roles together in person, and numerous readily available settings, such as the White House or a similar venue in Western Europe, would be a perfect backdrop for a magnificent peace-making spectacle. But it's hard to see how the Ukrainian and Russian positions can be bridged without a major change in the military and strategic equation on the ground. One side will have to essentially win. It's not impossible to imagine a ceasefire or even armistice in which Ukraine refuses to formally cede any land but that leaves parts of it in Russian hands. But even this bitter struggle over land isn't the core of the conflict. Russia invaded Ukraine in 2022 with the confident expectation of establishing its own governing authority in Kyiv and eliminating Ukraine's increasingly western-oriented state and society it found profoundly threatening. Ukraine, democratising despite rampant corruption, was even a 'bad example' to Russians about their own political alternatives. Certainly, Russia may want to annex Ukrainian territory, now packaged as potential 'land swaps'. But what it really wants is to ensure that Ukraine doesn't integrate further into the West creating, from Mr Putin's perspective, an intolerable threat to Russia along much of its western border. But greater integration into the West and Europe is precisely what Ukraine intends. These two positions are clearly irreconcilable and far more significant than the land deal on which Mr Trump seems focused. Potential US or western 'security guarantees' for Ukraine cut precisely to the point. Ukraine already received guarantees from the west, and Russia itself, in their denuclearisation agreements between 1991–1994. None of this protected Ukraine from Russia in 2014 or 2022. The closest thing to a reliable guarantee would be for Ukraine to join Nato, the ultimate Russian red line. Mr Trump's negotiator, Steve Witkoff, spoke about the potential for new guarantees that would mimic Article 5 of the Nato treaty that is commonly interpreted to commit the US and other signatories to militarily defending any Nato member that comes under attack. It would effectively throw an American and European nuclear umbrella over Ukraine. Unfortunately, Mr Trump has indicated several times that not only is he highly suspicious of Nato in general, he does not accept that Article 5 commits the US to defending anyone. Indeed, the Article was originally crafted to allow isolationist Americans to read it in this manner, although this has never been a White House perspective until now. This conflict is simultaneously simple yet profound. Ukraine wants to be independent, increasingly democratic and gradually join the EU and possibly even Nato. It sees its future as shaped by an identity that looks West rather than East. For Russia, all of that is simply unacceptable. That leaves Mr Trump seeking an agreement he probably can't get, especially if he allows Mr Putin to keep steering him away from the necessity for an immediate ceasefire. Russia can continue to wear down Ukraine on the battlefield, although a resumption of robust US military aid might eventually make that prohibitively costly. Mr Putin wants time to press for additional advantage, while Ukraine needs all the help it can get. Ukraine still has rational hopes that even under Mr Trump, Washington will eventually resume backing its resistance to Moscow. But Mr Putin appears to skilfully be playing for time, equally rationally confident that his larger forces can wear the Ukrainians down, especially without US military aid. We clearly see the extraordinary transformation of the global strategic landscape. What ought to be two sides is now three, with the US appearing to no longer lead, or even participate in, a western alliance defending Ukraine. The 2022 Russian invasion may well be remembered as the turning point to a new era in international relations in which, for a time at least, whatever rules once existed are gone, and only might makes right. Under Mr Trump, Washington seems perfectly OK with that.
