HARARE – A storm is brewing over President Emmerson Mnangagwa’s alleged plans to extend his rule beyond the constitutionally mandated two-term limit, with a draft Constitutional Amendment Bill (No. 3) reportedly nearing gazetting. The move, which could see Mnangagwa remain in power until 2030, has sparked fierce debate and raised serious questions about the future of Zimbabwean democracy.
A cabinet minister, speaking to The NewsHawks on condition of anonymity to avoid preempting the plan, confirmed that the bill is expected to be gazetted imminently, possibly before Christmas. “The drafting by experts under the Attorney-General and the Justice minister’s oversight has been done, and it now awaits going through cabinet and then parliament for gazetting,” the minister stated.
The minister outlined the process involved in passing the bill, explaining that the Minister of Justice, Legal and Parliamentary Affairs is responsible for steering the bill through the relevant government and parliamentary stages. Once cabinet approves the final draft, it is sent to parliament, which then engages government printers to publish the bill. The Clerk of Parliament is the officer who formally publishes the bill in the Government Gazette.
Crucially, Section 328(3) of the constitution mandates that the precise terms of the bill must be published in the Government Gazette at least 90 days before its introduction into parliament. This is intended to allow for public debate and consultation. Following this, the bill will proceed through the National Assembly and Senate, where it will be debated and scrutinised. If it secures the required two-thirds majority in both houses, it will be sent to the President for assent. Once signed into law, it will be gazetted as an Act of Parliament.
The central point of contention surrounding Mnangagwa’s 2030 agenda is whether the proposed amendment should be subjected to a national referendum. Critics argue that extending the presidential term effectively destabilises the constitutionally enshrined five-year, two-term limits.
Sections 91, 95, and 328 of the constitution are central to this debate. Section 91(2) disqualifies anyone from being elected president if they have already held the office for two terms. Section 95(1) stipulates that the president’s term is five years, aligning with the parliamentary term. Importantly, Section 328(7) states that amendments extending term limits cannot benefit an incumbent, while Section 328(9) requires a national referendum and a two-thirds parliamentary majority for any amendment to term limits that would benefit the current officeholder.
Zanu PF, however, argues that the bill does not trigger the need for a referendum because it only addresses the duration of the presidency and not the term limits themselves. This interpretation, initially championed by Professor Jonathan Moyo, distinguishes between the presidency as an institution and the term limits of individual officeholders.
Moyo argues that Section 91(2) is the actual “term-limit provision,” while Section 95(2)(b), which sets presidential terms at five years each, is merely a “term length” provision. According to this argument, the latter can be amended without a referendum.
Prominent lawyer Tawanda Nyambirai has offered another interpretation, suggesting that the phrase “…except as otherwise provided in this constitution” in Section 95(2)(b) creates a legal loophole. He argues that parliament could specify a different term length (e.g., seven years) elsewhere in the constitution without directly amending Section 95(2)(b).
However, this view is strongly contested by neutral observers, civil society organisations, and opposition figures. They argue that the historical context, constitutional principles, and the democratic framework – particularly in light of Robert Mugabe’s 37-year rule – clearly demonstrate that the intention of the constitution’s framers was to prevent any incumbent from extending their rule beyond 10 years or two terms of five years each, regardless of whether this is achieved by changing the duration of the term or directly amending the term limits. They insist that any extension of the duration of office or changes to term limits must be put to a referendum.
Critics argue that term limits and the duration of tenure are inextricably linked and serve the same purpose: to limit the exercise of power and prevent unlimited tenure. They contend that having term limits without limiting the duration of tenure would be meaningless. Zanu PF, they say, seeks to amend the duration of tenure precisely because it is limited to a maximum of 10 years through the two-term limit.
These arguments have found some support across the political spectrum. Critics dismiss Moyo’s argument as unsustainable, claiming that it treats the duration section and the term limit provision as separate issues when they are inherently interconnected. They argue that this approach fails the test of the Doctrine of Harmonious Construction, a legal principle that requires different sections of a law or constitution to be read together in context to achieve their full meaning.
The Doctrine of Harmonious Construction presumes that the framers of the constitution intended for all provisions to be consistent and work together as a coherent whole, rather than undermine each other. In this case, the duration of the incumbent’s tenure and term limits are connected and cannot be treated as separate issues.
Furthermore, critics argue that Moyo’s interpretation fails to consider contextual or purposive interpretation, which emphasises that the true meaning of a legal provision must be determined in light of its context, purpose, and the overall objectives of the law. In this instance, the objective is to ensure that no one serves beyond a maximum of 10 years or two terms of five years each – coterminous with the life of parliament under normal circumstances – without a referendum, and that the incumbent cannot benefit from any such change.
Similarly, Nyambirai’s argument is dismissed as mere sophistry – the use of clever but false arguments – and obfuscation. Critics insist that the duration of tenure is inextricably linked to term limits, as the framers of the law and the people themselves intended to limit the exercise of power and make it difficult to extend one’s rule without first consulting the electorate through a referendum, rather than relying on a parliament potentially compromised by self-interest.
Zanu PF’s intentions were further confirmed by the party’s national political commissar, Munyaradzi Machacha, who recently stated in court papers that the party intends to pursue constitutional amendments to extend Mnangagwa’s term of office beyond 2028 to 2030, in line with resolutions passed at its 2024 and 2025 annual conferences.
Local civil society organisation Ibhetshu Likazulu and its leader, Mbuso Fuzwayo, are challenging Mnangagwa’s 2030 plan in court.
The issue has also exposed divisions within Zanu PF, with Vice-President Constantino Chiwenga, reportedly locked in a succession battle with Mnangagwa, said to be opposed to the 2030 plan and the constitutional amendment.
The impending gazetting of the Constitutional Amendment Bill (No. 3) has ignited a national debate with potentially far-reaching consequences for Zimbabwe’s political future.
Follow @MyZimbabweNews
