The trade surplus fiasco: can Zimbabwe’s economic figures really be trusted, or are they rigged?

Tendai Ruben Mbofana

The recent revision of February 2026 trade data by the Zimbabwe National Statistics Agency (ZimStat) warrants a serious look at how economic figures are communicated and verified. 

If you value my social justice advocacy and writing, please consider a financial contribution to keep it going. Contact me on WhatsApp: +263 715 667 700 or Email: mbofana.tendairuben73@gmail.com

Initially reporting a trade surplus of US$46.5 million, the agency later adjusted the figure to a deficit of US$89.7 million—a reversal of more than US$136 million. 

Such a substantial shift naturally raises questions regarding the reliability of the data provided to the public. 

How does a government possibly commit such a “mistake”? 

One must ask if this is a genuine error in administrative data capture or a symptom of a deeper transparency and reliability crisis, where preliminary, optimistic figures are rushed out to anchor public sentiment, only to be corrected once the narrative impact has been achieved.

This lack of transparency forces us to look at other national statistics with renewed skepticism. 

Consider the recent, touted claim of being the “fastest-growing economy in the region” for 2025, with a projected 7 percent growth rate. 

This narrative was largely anchored by a massive GDP rebasing, which saw the 2025 figure jump from US$35.2 billion to US$44.4 billion. 

In the absence of a sound, detailed, and transparent explanation for such a significant leap, one cannot help but wonder if these figures are being engineered to project stability where there is none. 

The official claim that this jump “reflects changes in the structure of the economy” is entirely unconvincing. 

It is a convenient, catch-all phrase used to mask a lack of transparency, offering no verifiable proof of where such a massive increase in economic activity originated or why it remained hidden until it became politically expedient to reveal it.

The same doubt applies to the supposed “single-digit ZiG inflation rate.” When the official narrative of price stability is starkly contradicted by the lived experience of citizens managing everyday costs, the agency’s credibility collapses. 

This skepticism is further compounded by the memory of past attempts to rig inflation data through dubious blending systems—artificially mixing US dollar and local currency prices to produce a single, highly suspicious inflation figure that bore no resemblance to the actual freefall of the local currency.

Furthermore, this manipulation mirrors the historical distortion of the exchange rate, which for years was artificially and unrealistically kept low through either rigid government-mandated rates or a questionable auction system that ignored market realities.

If the trade figures can swing by hundreds of millions of dollars without adequate explanation, why should the public believe the complex methodology behind the consumer price index or GDP calculations?

These questions inevitably extend to the role of international financial institutions like the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank. 

How can these organizations continue to trust the figures coming out of Zimbabwe, especially considering they have no capacity to independently and fully verify the primary data provided by local authorities? 

When IFIs base their models on this potentially flawed information, they risk inadvertently validating a narrative of progress that is not reflected on the ground. 

By accepting these figures as the baseline, they provide a veneer of legitimacy to an economic framework that has yet to prove its own internal consistency.

This climate of uncertainty also makes Zimbabweans question the claims surrounding the Reserve Bank of Zimbabwe’s (RBZ) foreign currency and gold reserves. 

Following the official announcement last week that gold reserves have reached 4.48 metric tonnes, the authorities have used this figure—along with their claimed ranking as 11th in Africa and 3rd in the SADC region—as proof of a robust economic buffer. 

Yet, in the absence of independent, third-party audits, these claims remain unverified assertions from an institution whose own data pipeline is demonstrably volatile. 

If the government’s trade data can be so wildly inaccurate, what objective assurance does the public have that this volume of gold is actually sitting in the vault?

Ultimately, this situation underscores the critical need for a more transparent and robust approach to data collection and dissemination. 

If the goal is to build long-term economic stability and cultivate public trust, the process of reporting—and correcting—national figures must be managed with a level of openness that allows for objective verification. 

Without clarity on why these shifts happen and how the underlying data is validated, these reports will continue to be a source of national debate rather than a foundational tool for informed economic decision-making. 

Trust is a fragile commodity, and in an economy already facing systemic challenges, the consistent and transparent management of national statistics is a fundamental requirement for progress. 

The February trade fiasco should serve as a wake-up call; until the authorities can provide total transparency, they will continue to face the rightful, questioning scrutiny of a public that deserves to know the real economic story.

• Tendai Ruben Mbofana is a social justice advocate and writer. To directly receive his articles please join his WhatsApp Channel on: https://whatsapp.com/channel/0029VaqprWCIyPtRnKpkHe08