By HRH Princess Eugene Majuru | News of The South
Wicknell Chivayo’s Facebook presence was more than an ordinary social media account. It was a public platform through which he communicated with followers, announced expensive gifts, celebrated personal achievements and generated widespread discussion across Zimbabwe. His posts frequently became news stories. His announcements could transform the fortunes of selected beneficiaries. His photographs and videos helped establish a distinctive public image built around wealth, generosity and influence. But following his reported death, a new question emerges: who should control the digital identity he leaves behind? The issue extends beyond Facebook. It concerns private messages, photographs, cloud storage, email accounts, online business records and the growing financial and historical value of a public figure’s digital archive.
A Facebook page that became a national platform
For many Zimbabweans, Chivayo’s Facebook account was the first place to learn about his latest gifts and public statements.
His social media activity did not merely document events. It frequently helped create them.
A single announcement could trigger celebrations, media coverage, speculation and debate.
The account therefore became an important record of his public activities.
Its contents may hold continuing value for journalists, researchers, beneficiaries and people interested in understanding the businessman’s life.
However, public interest in the material does not automatically establish a right to access private information.
That distinction becomes especially important after death.
Who can take control?
Social media platforms have their own procedures for handling the accounts of deceased users.
On Facebook, memorialisation and account removal are among the possible outcomes, depending on the platform’s policies and the arrangements made by the account holder.
A legacy contact, where one has been appointed, may be permitted to manage certain aspects of a memorialised profile.
That does not mean the person receives unrestricted access to private messages or every item of information associated with the account.
Other digital services operate under different rules.
Family members and estate representatives may therefore face difficulties accessing information that appears important but is protected by privacy safeguards, passwords or contractual restrictions.
It would be premature to suggest that any particular person has taken control of Chivayo’s accounts without confirmation.
The value of private messages
Chivayo’s online communications may have included conversations with business associates, beneficiaries, suppliers, musicians and other public figures.
Some messages could potentially help establish the circumstances surrounding financial promises or commercial arrangements.
But private correspondence is not automatically public property simply because the account holder has died.
Access may depend on the relevant platform’s policies, applicable law and the authority of those seeking the information.
There is also a wider ethical issue.
Should private conversations involving a deceased public figure be released simply because they might attract public attention?
Journalists have a responsibility to distinguish between information that serves a legitimate public interest and material that merely satisfies curiosity.
The privacy rights and legitimate interests of living correspondents must also be considered.
Could his account become a source of misinformation?
Another concern is the possibility of confusion if new material appears on a deceased person’s social media account.
Followers may struggle to distinguish between older scheduled posts, statements issued by authorised representatives and content published by someone who has obtained access without permission.
An account associated with expensive gifts and influential relationships could also attract impersonators or fraudsters.
False announcements about donations, financial assistance or investment opportunities could exploit the trust built around the original account.
Any future communication through Chivayo’s official pages should therefore clearly identify who is responsible for publishing it.
Transparency would help protect both the public and the family.
The question of photographs and copyright
Chivayo’s social media accounts contain material that may continue circulating for years.
However, a photograph appearing on a public Facebook page does not necessarily mean it is free for anyone to reproduce without permission.
Copyright may belong to the photographer, a media organisation or another rights holder.
The same principle applies to videos and other creative material.
News organisations may sometimes rely on applicable reporting exceptions, but those exceptions are not unlimited.
Publishers should assess the rights associated with each image rather than assuming that public visibility means unrestricted use.
Preserving the digital history
There is also a compelling argument for preserving material that documents Chivayo’s public life.
His announcements, interviews and social media statements form part of the historical record of a period in which wealth, celebrity and politics became increasingly intertwined in Zimbabwe’s public conversation.
Future researchers may wish to examine how his public image developed and how society responded to his spending and generosity.
Preservation, however, should be lawful and respectful.
A carefully maintained public archive is different from indiscriminate publication of private correspondence.
A new kind of inheritance
In earlier generations, the belongings left by a wealthy individual might have included property deeds, letters, business records and photographs.
Today, a substantial part of a person’s legacy may exist online.
Social media accounts can contain valuable intellectual property, commercial records, personal memories and information that affects other people.
Chivayo’s digital presence illustrates why estate planning increasingly needs to address online accounts and digital assets.
The most important question is not simply who knows the passwords.
It is who has lawful authority to preserve, manage and, where appropriate, disclose the information.
Wicknell Chivayo’s social media presence helped shape his public life.
How it is managed after his death could influence how that life is remembered.
“Go and See Victor.” — Sir Wicknell Chivayo
Read more Wicknell Chivayo news, investigations and analysis on News of The South.
Comments
About Author
