Beyond the luxury cars and cash donations lies a bigger story about the dealerships, businesses, political connections and networks of influence surrounding one of Zimbabwe’s most controversial businessmen.
By HRH Princess Eugene Majuru | Editor-in-Chief, News of The South
| Harare, Zimbabwe. For years, Zimbabweans watched businessman Wicknell Chivayo distribute luxury vehicles, substantial cash gifts and other expensive donations to musicians, religious leaders, politicians, sporting personalities and individuals from different walks of life. Each announcement attracted enormous public attention. Social media platforms erupted with congratulations, admiration, criticism and sometimes jealousy. Photographs of smiling beneficiaries standing beside brand-new vehicles became a familiar feature of Zimbabwe’s public life. But behind every luxury car presented to a beneficiary was another transaction. Behind every million dollars distributed was a network of businesses, suppliers and financial relationships that received far less public attention than the recipients themselves. The vehicles had to be purchased, imported, registered, insured and delivered. The cash had to move through financial channels. The dealerships had to secure their stock. The transactions required commercial arrangements involving companies, employees and service providers. And beyond the money lay something potentially more valuable: influence. Who really benefited from Wicknell Chivayo’s extraordinary generosity? Was it only the people who received his gifts, or did his spending create a much larger network of commercial and social beneficiaries? The answer requires examining not only where the money went, but also how it circulated, who gained financially and whether those transactions created relationships of influence.
The dealerships behind the famous words: Go and see Victor
Perhaps no phrase captured Chivayo’s extraordinary spending better than the instruction to visit Victor at Exquisite Car Dealership. The instruction became so familiar that it developed into a national catchphrase. For the recipient, it meant collecting a vehicle. For the dealership, it represented a commercial transaction involving potentially substantial sums of money.
Reports indicate that Victor Matiyenga and Exquisite Car Sales played an important role in facilitating Chivayo’s vehicle giveaways. Other dealers in Harare’s Eastlea and Braeside areas reportedly supplied vehicles, sometimes combining stock to fulfil large orders.
One dealer described orders involving as many as 100 Toyota Aquas or 50 Toyota Fortuners. These accounts, reported on 12 October, have not been independently verified against invoices or dealership records.
The scale of these purchases raises important economic questions.
How much revenue did the dealerships generate from Chivayo’s business? How many vehicles were imported specifically to meet his requirements? How much profit did the suppliers earn? Did his purchasing power enable him to negotiate preferential prices or payment terms?
These questions deserve attention because the economic benefits of his giving extended beyond those photographed receiving vehicles.
A car dealership makes money from selling vehicles. Transport companies earn money moving them. Clearing agents receive fees. Insurance companies may earn premiums, while mechanics, technicians and other service providers can benefit from ongoing maintenance.
The recipient may have received the most visible benefit, but the transaction potentially supported an entire commercial network.
The sudden death that exposed financial relationships
Chivayo’s death has brought another dimension of these relationships into focus.
Recent reports suggest that some dealerships supplied vehicles under arrangements that allowed collection before full payment.
One report describes the distribution of 15 Toyota Fortuners to church beneficiaries on 30 September, the day of the fatal helicopter crash, and raises questions about outstanding balances owed to suppliers.
If confirmed, such arrangements would demonstrate the degree of commercial trust that developed between Chivayo and the businesses supplying his vehicles.
However, the reported debts have not been independently established, and there is no verified public accounting of the total amounts outstanding.
This distinction is essential.
A businessman can be generous and still have legitimate commercial liabilities. Equally, the existence of credit arrangements does not automatically establish wrongdoing or financial distress.
The unanswered question is whether the dealers who benefited from Chivayo’s spending were also exposed to significant financial risk through their dependence on one major customer.
His death may therefore reveal the commercial consequences of a relationship that appeared extraordinarily profitable while he was alive.
Money does not only buy cars. It can create influence.
The more complicated aspect of Chivayo’s generosity concerns the relationships created through his gifts.
A luxury vehicle worth US$200,000 is not an ordinary present.
For many recipients, it represents several years, or even decades, of potential earnings.
Such gifts can generate enormous gratitude and public goodwill towards the person providing them.
This does not mean every recipient was influenced improperly or that Chivayo expected favours in return.
But expensive gifts involving prominent individuals inevitably raise questions about independence, influence and possible conflicts of interest.
When a wealthy businessman gives an expensive vehicle to a musician, the public may interpret it as appreciation for artistic talent.
When the recipient is a religious leader, questions may arise about the relationship between financial patronage and spiritual authority.
When the recipient holds public office or occupies a position of institutional responsibility, the issues become more sensitive.
The public has a legitimate interest in understanding whether gifts could compromise professional independence or create expectations of favourable treatment.
The musicians: Was Chivayo becoming more powerful than the music industry itself?
Chivayo’s generosity towards Zimbabwean musicians was among the most visible aspects of his public life.
Artists including Jah Prayzah, Tocky Vibes, Sandra Ndebele and several others received expensive vehicles or financial gifts.
According to a September 2026 report by Billionaires Africa, Jah Prayzah received a Mercedes-Benz valued at approximately US$180,000 in 2024, followed by another luxury vehicle and a substantial cash gift in 2025.
For musicians, such assistance can provide considerable financial relief.
But the scale of the donations also raises an important question about the balance of power within Zimbabwe’s creative industry.
Could one wealthy individual become more influential in determining which artists received substantial financial rewards than the commercial music industry itself?
An artist might spend years producing albums, performing concerts and developing a following without accumulating the equivalent value of a single luxury vehicle.
Another artist might receive that amount through one public donation.
There is nothing inherently unlawful about such an arrangement. Private individuals are entitled to support artists they admire.
However, an industry that relies heavily on individual patronage risks allowing financial power to become concentrated outside its normal commercial structures.
Artists should not have to depend on attracting the attention of a wealthy benefactor to achieve financial stability.
Religious leaders and the power of financial patronage
Chivayo also developed highly visible relationships with religious leaders and church organisations.
In August 2026, he announced two Toyota Land Cruiser 300 Series vehicles for Pastor Felix Angel and Pastor Elijah, together with US$10,000 in cash for each recipient.
He publicly linked the gifts to their loyalty and dedication to religious service. In September, he announced vehicles and cash gifts for 12 members of the United Family International Church, including ushers and church leaders.
Religious organisations have long benefited from private donations, and philanthropy can help churches provide essential community services.
Nevertheless, exceptionally expensive personal gifts to religious leaders deserve careful examination.
Could such generosity affect perceptions of independence? Were the gifts made to individuals or religious institutions? Were there formal declarations or accountability mechanisms?
The answers cannot be assumed.
But when significant wealth moves between influential businesspeople and religious figures, transparency protects both donors and recipients from unfounded allegations.
The political dimension: Where business, government and generosity meet
Perhaps the most sensitive issue concerns Chivayo’s political connections and business dealings involving public institutions.
His companies and business relationships attracted scrutiny over major government-linked projects, including the Gwanda solar project and allegations relating to election-material procurement.
These matters must be distinguished carefully.
Chivayo was acquitted of fraud in proceedings connected to the Gwanda solar project. In December 2025, the Zimbabwe Anti-Corruption Commission reportedly closed its investigation into allegations concerning election-material procurement, saying it had found no evidence linking him to a Zimbabwe Electoral Commission contract or business transaction.
These outcomes are material and cannot be ignored.
Nevertheless, questions about public procurement transparency, value for money and the relationship between private business and political influence remain legitimate subjects for journalism.
In February 2026, Chivayo publicly announced a Range Rover worth approximately US$250,000 for Zimbabwe Football Association president Nqobile Magwizi, describing it as recognition of his leadership and the welfare arrangements for the national football team.
Such gifts illustrate why the distinction between private generosity and institutional accountability matters.
Public officials, sporting administrators and other influential individuals may be subject to ethical obligations that differ from those applying to ordinary private citizens.
The question is not simply whether a gift was accepted.
It is whether the recipient’s position required disclosure, whether relevant rules were followed and whether any conflict of interest existed.
The lawyer who refused the money
One of the most revealing episodes in Chivayo’s giving history involved prominent lawyer Lewis Uriri.
In September 2026, Chivayo publicly offered Uriri a Range Rover Sport Autobiography valued at approximately US$250,000, together with substantial cash gifts.
Uriri and his wife reportedly declined the package.
The lawyer explained that he had not represented Chivayo since June 2024 and that previous professional fees had been settled. He cited the importance of protecting professional independence and public confidence in the legal profession.
His decision raises a wider ethical question.
If a professional believes that accepting an expensive gift could compromise public perceptions of independence, should similar concerns apply to other influential recipients?
There is no universal answer because professional duties, institutional rules and the circumstances surrounding gifts differ.
But Uriri’s refusal demonstrates that the value of a gift cannot be measured only in money.
Sometimes the professional implications of accepting it may be more important than its financial worth.
The recipients were visible. The commercial beneficiaries were not.
The most overlooked aspect of Chivayo’s generosity may be the distribution of economic benefits behind the scenes.
Every major purchase involved people and businesses whose names rarely appeared in celebratory social media announcements.
There were vehicle suppliers, sales agents, transport operators, financial intermediaries and administrative personnel.
Some benefited from direct sales. Others may have gained repeat business, publicity or access to new customers.
The scale of this commercial activity deserves proper examination.
But it is also important to distinguish ordinary commercial profit from improper influence.
A dealership that lawfully sells vehicles to a wealthy customer has not necessarily done anything questionable.
A supplier that earns revenue from large orders is simply participating in business.
The public-interest issue arises when there are concerns about undisclosed relationships, conflicts of interest, financial irregularities or the use of political connections to obtain commercial advantages.
These require evidence, not insinuation.
Did generosity become a form of personal branding?
Chivayo’s giving was unusually public.
His announcements frequently included the beneficiary’s name, the model of vehicle, its stated value and instructions for collection.
The gifts generated photographs, social media engagement, media coverage and expressions of appreciation.
From a communications perspective, this was a powerful form of personal branding.
Each donation reinforced his public identity as a wealthy and generous businessman.
The recipients gained valuable assets, while Chivayo gained visibility and, among many supporters, goodwill.
But public recognition does not necessarily mean generosity was insincere.
A person may genuinely wish to help others while also enjoying public acknowledgement.
The question is whether Chivayo’s highly visible philanthropy became an important source of social influence and whether that influence had consequences beyond charitable giving.
What did Zimbabwe gain from the millions?
There is another dimension that deserves serious consideration.
If Chivayo spent millions of dollars purchasing vehicles, what was the broader economic effect?
Vehicle imports may generate customs revenue, taxes and fees. Dealerships may earn profits and employ workers.
However, imported luxury vehicles can also represent substantial expenditure on goods manufactured outside Zimbabwe.
Would the same money have generated more sustainable employment if invested in local manufacturing, agriculture, tourism, housing or other productive sectors?
That question should not be used to condemn private spending.
Individuals have the right to decide how to use lawfully acquired wealth.
Nevertheless, examining the economic impact of large-scale luxury consumption is legitimate, particularly in a country facing significant development challenges.
A US$200,000 vehicle provides a valuable asset to one recipient.
The same amount invested in a productive enterprise might support multiple jobs.
The outcomes depend on how the money is used, and neither should be assumed without evidence.
The questions that remain unanswered
To establish who really benefited from Chivayo’s millions, a comprehensive investigation would need to examine dealership sales records, payment arrangements, vehicle registration documents, corporate ownership records and the identities of major commercial suppliers.
It would also need to establish the extent of his relationships with public officials, religious leaders and other influential individuals.
Were expensive gifts declared where disclosure was required?
Did recipients have professional or institutional responsibilities that could create conflicts of interest?
Were any gifts connected to existing commercial relationships?
Did dealerships receive preferential access to Chivayo’s business, and on what terms?
How much of the reported spending was completed before his death, and how much remained outstanding?
Most importantly, can the commercial benefits and relationships be documented without confusing ordinary business activity with misconduct?
These are the questions that could transform public discussion into meaningful investigative journalism.
A legacy that extends far beyond the people who received cars
Wicknell Chivayo’s death has ended one of Zimbabwe’s most extraordinary periods of highly publicised private giving.
His generosity brought material benefits to numerous individuals and organisations.
It also generated commercial activity for vehicle dealers and associated businesses, strengthened personal relationships and placed him at the centre of public conversations about wealth and influence.
But the full economic story has yet to be established.
The public saw the cars, the celebrations and the smiling beneficiaries.
What remains less visible is the network of transactions and relationships that made those gifts possible.
That network may hold the key to understanding the wider significance of his wealth.
The real story of Wicknell Chivayo’s millions is not simply how much he gave away. It is how his money circulated, which businesses benefited, what relationships developed and how much influence accompanied the generosity.
His death may have brought an end to the famous instruction to collect another luxury vehicle.
But the financial relationships and questions surrounding his extraordinary spending have not disappeared.
And perhaps the most important question is the one that received the least attention while he was alive:
Who benefited from Wicknell Chivayo’s millions beyond the people whose names appeared on the gift announcements?
Until the transactions are independently examined, the complete answer remains unknown.
Read more Wicknell Chivayo News, Exclusive Investigations and Updates:
https://newsofthesouth.com/category/news/wicknell-chivayo-news/
© News of The South | By HRH Princess Eugene Majuru, Editor-in-Chief
Comments
About Author
