IT now seems that the more some people argue that perhaps Nyarota really does not know that he is a sell-out, the more cast-iron the allegation becomes.
And, it is not a matter of spite, but a matter of fact.
While he calls himself ‘an acclaimed journalist’, the historical context that is supposed to inform Geoff Nyarota’s worldview does not celebrate his achievements.
Zimbabwe’s bloodied history disowns and indicts Nyarota, and the charge against him is high treason.
And, this is why and how:
Nyarota was born in 1951.
Zimbabwe had been under a genocidal British occupation for 61 years.
This means that Nyarota was born not into peaceful circumstances, but racist abuse.
He was born into a violent environment in which indigenous black meant landless ‘minion’ and white settler meant exclusively privileged racist ‘master’. 
As a matter of fact, the year Geoff Nyarota was born was one of the worst for black people in the British colony of Rhodesia.
It was the year of the 1951 Land Husbandry Act which harvested African livestock in order to stock white settler farms.
And, the 1951 Land Husbandry Act was an act that impoverished Nyarota’s own majority black kith and kin to enrich minority white settlers; an act that funnelled black people into white settler farms and mines as cheap labour.
And, in that times-cape the racist act was a slap in the face of the United Nations (UN) which only three years before (1948) had proclaimed the Universal Human Rights Charter that recognised the equality of all human beings regardless of race or creed.
In the face of that sad history, it becomes difficult to imagine how an African journalist born into such circumstances could think of his birthday as just a simple day hanging in a time void without historic landmarks.
It becomes difficult to accept the possibility that perhaps Nyarota really does not know that he is a sell-out.
How can an African journalist raised in a rogue racist state that was not recognised by the UN specifically for gross racist crimes against black humanity, be blind to such callous inhumanity.
How can such an African journalist come out of such a murky historical context and claim not to see the absence of sincerity and logic in a dispossessed black man being ‘acclaimed’ or ‘celebrated’ by his white dispossessors for being ‘a defiant voice’ against his own liberators or ‘a fearless critic’ of his own liberators.
And, incidentally, Nyarota is from Makoni District.
In the run-up to the July 31 2013 watershed elections, he lost a bid to represent Makoni District under the puppet MDC-T ticket and today, I am inclined to side with those who have argued that Nyarota’s loss was divine intervention reflected on a larger scale by the colossal loss of the whole MDC-T to ZANU PF. 
In the history of Zimbabwe, Makoni District, which Nyarota had the cheek to want to represent in parliament, is not an ordinary district.
The name ‘Makoni’ resonates with colonial genocide wrought upon indigenous Zimbabweans by white settler forces.
Chingaira Makoni was ‘a defiant voice’ in a racially brutalised land and ‘a fearless critic’ of the homosexual Cecil John Rhodes.
Chingaira Makoni led the protracted resistance against occupation of his land by British settlers.
And, he was silenced by a beheading and mummification of his head into a trophy of conquest. And he was not the only such victim.
The same thing happened to Mashayamombe too and a host of other African leaders whose only crime was to resist British occupation, dispossession and human rights abuses.
The media world should justifiably be surprised if Nyarota claims ignorance of this most critical history of defiant voices and racist human rights violations in Zimbabwe.
The question would then be asked kuti: “Ko saka what is he doing in journalism?”
Surely, one would like to believe that a journalist who knows enough American history to allude a local scandal (Willowvale/Willowgate) to an American scandal (Watergate) would more importantly know enough of his own history to tell when he is selling out.
He would know enough of his own history to make his definitions of ‘human rights abuses’ and ‘justice’ consistent with the collective experience of his own people. He would know that it is the collective African experience that should endorse or validate ‘awards’ from the enemy.
He would know that it is the collective African experience that should define Africa’s friends or enemies. It is definitely shameless journalism to draw acclaim from knowing the Watergate Scandal that brought down US President Nixon, and yet not know the Rudd Concession Scandal; or the scandal of thieving British settlers baptising their indigenous Zimbabwean victims before murdering them; or the scandal of mummifying the heads of African freedom fighters (Chingaira and Mashayamombe) into trophies of conquest; or the scandal of burying a British homosexual in the most sacred rock of Zimbabwe; or the genocidal scandal of the Land Apportionment Act of 1931; or the scandal of the  1951 Land Husbandry Act; or the scandal of Ian Smith’s Unilateral Declaration of Independence; the scandals of Nyadzonia, Chimoio, Tembwe, Freedom Camp, Mkushi, Chibondo and Butcher Farm; or the scandal of a whole super power (USA) unilaterally imposing illegal sanctions (ZDERA) on a tiny Third World state in order to subject thirteen million indigenous black people to the racist economic whims of a tiny settler community of four thousand whites.  
The history of the white settlers in Zimbabwe is a litany of irrefutable scandals so outrageous that it is difficult to understand how Nyarota, a journalist from the bloodied and silenced Makoni District, could exist in such a disturbing historical context and yet be celebrated as ‘a defiant voice’ not for his own beheaded ancestor’s dignity, or his own dispossessed kith and kin’s dignity but for the impunity of the racist beneficiaries of those history scandals.
It is treasonous journalism for  a black Zimbabwean journalist to receive an award for being a defiant voice in a ‘silenced land’, not for Nehanda, Kaguvi, Mashonganyika and others who lie silenced in unmarked graves and yet be comfortable with the  burial of their murderer as a tourist attraction in the most sacred space of the raped land.
I insist that there is no truth in the excuse that perhaps Nyarota doesn’t even know that he is a sell-out.
Rather, what is most likely true is that Nyarota doesn’t know that no traitor commands respect even among the beneficiaries of his treachery because the credentials for recruitment (greed and a dead conscience) forbid it.
Treachery and respect exclude each other regardless of context!
In conclusion, it is pertinent to point out that it is the collective African experience that defines Nyarota as a traitor and not as an acclaimed journalist. Zimbabwean history asks kuti: “Acclaimed naani?”
Those who dispossessed and murdered Makoni?
Those who filled Chibondo mineshaft to the brim with black people silenced in acid drums?