Youth and women vendors in Murewa are resisting a directive from the Rural District Council ordering them to vacate their trading spots, arguing that the move threatens their livelihoods at a time when many families are already struggling to survive.
Vendor representative Lenon Takudzwa Mingore said the community is facing a heavy financial strain ahead of the festive season and the opening of the school calendar. He said many families rely entirely on vending to pay for fees, uniforms and food.
“Removing vendors now will disrupt our ability to support our households,” he said, adding that the directive shows little consideration for the pressures ordinary families are facing.
The vendors believe they are being unfairly targeted. Mingore said they pose far less risk to pedestrian safety compared to mushikashika drivers, who crowd the central business district.
He argued that if safety is the main concern, then transport operators should be included in the relocation plan instead of being left untouched while vendors are cleared out.
Related Stories
Their proposal is to remain at their current trading sites until March 2026, a period they believe would allow proper planning and prevent unnecessary conflict.
“We cannot be removed without a workable alternative. A fair approach must involve everyone, including mushikashika operators, so that there is collective responsibility,” Mingore said.
The pushback has opened a wider conversation about fairness and inclusivity in local governance. Vendors said they feel sidelined despite contributing significantly to the town’s informal economy and supporting thousands of dependents. They argue that inclusive planning is the only way to maintain order while also protecting livelihoods.
Residents who rely on the vendors echoed these concerns, noting that abrupt evictions often create chaos and force traders into unsafe, scattered spaces. Community members fear the move could strain household incomes just as families prepare for school expenses.
The vendors are now awaiting the council’s response, hoping for what they describe as a solution that reflects collective needs and aspirations.
They maintain that they are not opposed to relocation—only to being removed without a fair, practical and inclusive plan.
Leave Comments