At its 22nd
Annual National People’s Conference in Mutare last Saturday, the ruling party
reaffirmed an earlier resolution to extend Mnangagwa’s current presidential
term beyond 2028 to 2030, directing the Ministry of Justice to fast-track the
necessary constitutional amendments by October 2026, according to Zanu PF’s
legal secretary, Ziyambi Ziyambi, who also serves as Justice Minister.
If passed, the
resolution would effectively cancel the 2028 presidential election, stretching
Mnangagwa’s second term, mandated to end in 2028 to 2030.
The move is
seen as part of a broader plan to align Mnangagwa’s presidency with his “Vision
2030” development agenda, which seeks to transform Zimbabwe into an
upper-middle-income economy.
However,
political analysts see this push as another attempt to undermine
constitutionalism and entrench personal rule under the guise of policy
continuity.
This current
resolution comes after debates on how Mnangagwa, 83, would stay in power until
2030 as the constitution allows one to serve only two presidential terms.
Any change to
the term limit would require a constitutional amendment and potentially two
referendums, legal experts said.
In an argument
that has set the tone for the ruling party’s legal reasoning, political
commentator, Professor Jonathan Moyo previously stated Zanu PF could lawfully
extend Mnangagwa’s current term without holding a referendum.
According to
Moyo, the “term-limit” clause (Section 91 (2)) of Zimbabwe’s 2013 Constitution
limits the number of terms a president can serve, not the duration of those
terms, meaning Zanu PF could amend Section 95 (2)(b), which defines the
presidential term length, through a two-thirds parliamentary majority as
provided for under Section 328 (5), thereby changing the term length from five
to seven years.
This
interpretation, which CITE first covered here, appears to be the legal route
that Zanu PF is likely to take, as it commands the necessary two-thirds
majority in Parliament following by-elections and a fractured opposition,
giving it both the political will and numbers to pass the amendment.
Critics argued
this is a deliberate manipulation of constitutional semantics to achieve an
outcome that violates the spirit of democratic renewal embedded in Zimbabwe’s
2013 constitution.
Analysts also
warned that behind this narrative lies a deeper political motive, to
consolidate power and continue looting.
“The resolution
has nothing to do with the working class and peasantry, who constitute the
majority,” said Ngqabutho Nicholas Mabhena, general secretary of the Zimbabwe
Communist Party (ZCP).
“This
resolution has everything to do with the looting class, which wants to entrench
itself to continue to loot. We condemn this action. We want the working class
and peasantry to have the right to elect a leader of their choice in 2028.”
Mabhena said no
faction in Zanu PF represents the working class and peasantry, citing how those pushing for 2030 wanted to continue
their elite self-preservation, rather than national interest.
“We must
dismantle the looting class if we are to rebuild the economy in Zimbabwe.” he
said.
For other
observers, extending Mnangagwa’s presidency could be dire for both governance
and social stability.
“Extending
Mnangagwa’s stay in office is tantamount to prolonging the suffering of
Zimbabweans and shows that the well-being of citizens means nothing to Zanu
PF,” said political analyst Mxolisi Ncube.
Ncube described
how “sad” it was that this resolution came at a time when “Zimbabweans are
suffering both at home and in foreign lands, where they do menial jobs and go
through all forms of exploitation and abuse.”
“We still have
those responsible for their suffering seeking to consolidate their power
instead of accepting their failures,” he added.
“Despite his
many promises in 2017, Mnangagwa has failed to unite Zimbabweans, turn around
the country’s economy, arrest state-sponsored political violence, reform state
institutions, improve service delivery, democratise Zimbabwe and end
corruption.”
Ncube said it
was telling how President Mnangagwa “has been accused by many, including one of
his two deputies, Retired General Constantino Chiwenga, of surrounding himself
with corrupt people who are milking Zimbabwe dry.”
Zanu PF’s
latest proposal has also re-ignited concern over constitutional mutilation, a
process political commentator Dr
Vusumuzi Sibanda said President Mnangagwa has perfected since taking power in
2017.
“This is a
resolution that should be the downfall of Zanu PF,” Dr Sibanda said, warning
that the amendment would mark “the beginning of the end.”
“We know things
in Zimbabwe have always been done with impunity and nothing happens, but at
this particular stage, we call on Zimbabweans and the international community
to bring down the Zanu regime because the Constitution that is being amended
came in after so many years of it staying the way it was.”
Dr Sibanda said
it was known that “Mnangagwa has been busy mutilating this Constitution from
the first amendment, changing it so that it could revert to the old
Constitution where he was also involved in misgovernance. Now as the president
he wants to continue unabated for longer.”
“That’s why
he’s changing the presidential terms, despite the fact that when the
Constitution came in 2013, it allowed furtherance for another two terms which
should not have been the case because Zanu PF doesn’t want to leave power.
Mnangagwa also wants to continue.
“Come 2030,
something is going to happen. It would be very interesting to have a look and
see what this proposed amendment would look like. We have had so many fights in
Africa with African governments changing or amending constitutions to allow for
term limits.”
Dr Sibanda’s
warning situates Zimbabwe within a regional pattern of constitutional
regression, echoing trends in countries like Uganda, Rwanda, Ivory Coast,
Burundi, among others where leaders have extended their rule through technical
amendments dressed as reform.
In Uganda,
President Yoweri Museveni has been in power since 1986 and in 2005, he passed a
constitutional amendment that removed presidential term limits, allowing him to
run again after his initial two terms were ending.
In 2017, the
Ugandan Parliament passed an amendment that removed the presidential age limit
of 75, which would have barred Museveni, who was 73 at the time, from running
again.
In Rwanda,
President Paul Kagame has been the dominant political figure since 1994 and
president since 2000.
In 2015, a
national referendum approved a constitutional amendment that potentially
allowed Kagame to stay in power until 2034.
The amendment
reset Kagame’s term count, allowing him to serve seven more years after his
term ended in 2017, and then two additional five-year terms.
In Ivory Coast,
a new constitution in 2016 reset
presidential term limits, allowing Alassane Ouattara to run for a third term in
2020, which he argued was legal under the new constitution.
In Burundi, a
controversial constitutional change in 2018 extended presidential terms from
five to seven years and allowed President Pierre Nkurunziza to run again
(though he later died in office).
In the Republic
of Congo (Congo-Brazzaville), a referendum in 2015 approved a new constitution
that removed age limits and extended the term limit, allowing President Denis
Sassou Nguesso, in power since 1979 (with a five-year break), to run again and
win in 2016 and 2021.
In Chad, a 2005
referendum removed term limits, allowing President Idriss Déby to remain in
power until his death in 2021 while in Guinea, a new constitution in 2020 was
adopted via referendum, controversially resetting term limits and allowing
President Alpha Condé to run for a third term, which he won amidst major
protests and allegations of fraud. He was ousted in a coup the following year.
Dr Sibanda said
it did not matter who has done well or not, when their term is finished, it
should end there.
He stated the
current five year presidential term limitation is sufficient and suggested that
“in fact, it should go down to four years a term.”
“Five years is
actually too much. It is simple, if you fail to do anything within your term,
you can’t do it beyond it. You just failed. Go and retire. Zimbabweans have
obviously suffered, they have been cowered and pushed to the end, but this is
the beginning of the end,” Dr Sibanda said.
Religious
voices have also entered the debate, framing Zanu PF’s term-extension
resolution as a moral and constitutional crisis.
“Ordinarily,
such a resolution would be ignored since it’s an internal party matter. But
this one strikes at the very heart of our national unity and constitutional
democracy,” wrote Reverend Kenneth Mtata on his X account.
“It must be
clearly and firmly rejected, for many reasons, but here are three:
“First, no
justification has been given to justify such a drastic decision. If the
president accepts this change, he risks losing any legacy as a
constitutionalist and will permanently weaken institutions beyond his tenure.
“Second, such a
decision will break the spirit of the Constitution, even if some loopholes were
to be found to legally implement the extension. Manipulating constitutional
limits erodes public trust and weakens the foundations of democracy.
“Third, such a
decision may risk national instability. Once we start setting aside the
Constitution for political convenience, we normalise future unconstitutional
power changes. Having entered this grey zone in 2017, Zimbabwe cannot afford to
repeat the same mistake.”
Rev. Mtata
warned constitutional manipulation for short-term gain could again plunge the
country into instability.
“I hope the
president rejects the offer to extend his presidential term. If not, he must be
ready for uncertain times ahead,” he said.
From the
opposition, politician Gladys Kudzaishe Hlatywayo, warned that allowing the
2030 plan to succeed would undo the democratic gains achieved after the late,
Robert Mugabe’s ouster.
“The attempt by
Zanu PF to extend President Mnangagwa’s term must be vehemently resisted!”
Hlatywayo declared on her X platform.
“Following
President Mugabe’s long and disastrous tenure, we pushed so hard to get to term
limits and therefore never again must we allow any president or anyone to roll
back these democratic provisions in our Constitution! We reject dictatorship
and fascism in toto.” CITE
0 comments:
Post a Comment