HARARE — The “ED 2030” slogan is no longer just a rhythmic chant at ZANU PF rallies; it has morphed into a high-stakes legal mission. Across Zimbabwe, the air is thick with the scent of a constitutional showdown as the ruling party moves to ensure President Emmerson Mnangagwa remains in power beyond his scheduled exit in 2028. This is not merely a political manoeuvre; it is a complex series of constitutional “gymnastics” designed to bypass the very safeguards meant to protect the sanctity of the ballot box. At the heart of this storm is Constitutional Amendment Bill No. 3, a document that could fundamentally alter the face of Zimbabwean democracy forever.
The strategy being employed by ZANU PF strategists is as audacious as it is intricate. By reframing the extension of the presidential term from five to seven years as a mere adjustment of “election cycles,” the government hopes to sidestep the requirement for a national referendum. Justice, Legal and Parliamentary Affairs Minister Ziyambi Ziyambi has been the public face of this effort, arguing that the changes are necessary to “rectify decades of stagnation stemming from Presidential election disputes.” According to Ziyambi, the Bill “seeks to extend the duration of election cycles and does not require a referendum,” citing Section 328(6) of the Constitution, which he claims only mandates a public vote for amendments to fundamental rights.
However, the legal community is far from convinced. For months, the debate has centred on the “hidden clauses” within Section 328 of the 2013 Constitution. Specifically, Section 328(7) is a formidable barrier; it explicitly states that any amendment to a term-limit provision which extends the length of time a person may hold office cannot benefit anyone who held that office before the amendment was made. In simple terms, even if ZANU PF changes the law, Mnangagwa should, by rights, be ineligible to benefit from it. Yet, the “gymnastics” continue, with legal architects searching for a loophole that would allow the incumbent to stay until 2030 without asking the people for permission.
|
Key Constitutional Section
|
Purpose in 2013 Constitution
|
ZANU PF’s Proposed “Gymnastics”
|
|
Section 328(6)
|
Mandates a referendum for changes to term limits and fundamental rights.
|
Arguing that “election cycle” changes fall outside this requirement.
|
|
Section 328(7)
|
Prevents an incumbent from benefiting from an extension of their own term.
|
Attempting to bypass this through “new” provisions or shifting the election to Parliament.
|
|
Section 91 & 95
|
Defines the qualifications and term of office for the President.
|
Seeking to extend the five-year term to seven years.
|
|
Section 158
|
Governs the timing of general elections.
|
Using this to justify a delay in the 2028 polls until 2030.
|
Perhaps the most startling development in this saga is the sudden “U-turn” by Tawanda Nyambirai, a prominent lawyer and businessman whose legal opinions often carry significant weight. In October last year, Nyambirai was a vocal proponent of the idea that a referendum was unnecessary. He publicly argued that “Sections 91, 95, and 328 of the Zimbabwe Constitution do not require a referendum to introduce a 7 year Presidential term and do not prohibit a sitting President from benefiting from the 7 year term!!!” His stance was so aligned with the ruling party’s ambitions that some observers, like activist Freeman Chari, suggested that ZANU PF “copy pasted” his opinion into their legislative drafts.
But as the actual text of Constitutional Amendment Bill No. 3 came to light, Nyambirai performed a sharp about-face. “If the summaries circulating are accurate, I struggle to see how the proposed changes could be effected without triggering a referendum under Section 328 of the Constitution,” he stated on February 19, 2026. He now argues that the term of Parliament, which runs concurrently with that of the President, is “unequivocally term-limiting” under Section 143. “Absent some genuine constitutional innovation, it is difficult to see how it could be amended without a referendum,” he added. This reversal has left ZANU PF’s legal arguments exposed, as one of their most credible outside defenders has now joined the chorus of those demanding a public vote.
The push for the “2030 Agenda” has a darker, more sinister side that many in the government would prefer to keep hidden. Reports of abductions and torture have begun to surface, targeting those who dare to oppose the term extension. Members of the Constitution Defenders Forum (CDF), a group specifically formed to protect the 2013 charter, have reportedly been “hunted, abducted and brutally tortured for saying NO to Mnangagwa’s term extension.” In one harrowing incident, an activist was reportedly seized by unidentified men, only to be found later with severe injuries, a grim warning to others who might consider standing in the way of the “ED 2030” mission.
The violence has even reached the doorsteps of prominent intellectuals. In October 2025, the premises of Ibbo Mandaza, a well-known academic and critic of the regime, were reportedly bombed, and a security guard was abducted. These incidents paint a picture of a political environment where the rule of law is being replaced by the rule of fear. For every citizen worried about the future of the ballot box, these reports are a chilling reminder of the lengths to which some will go to maintain their grip on power. The “2030 Agenda” is not just a debate in the halls of Parliament; it is being enforced on the streets through intimidation and brutality.
Why did ZANU PF choose this moment to accelerate their plans? The answer lies in the internal dynamics of the party. The “ED 2030” campaign has sparked what some describe as a “ZANU PF bloodbath,” with factions loyal to Vice President Constantino Chiwenga reportedly resisting the move. By constitutionalising the extension now, the Mnangagwa faction hopes to present a fait accompli to their internal rivals, effectively sidelining any succession talk until at least the end of the decade. This internal power struggle is the silent engine driving the “gymnastics” in the Ministry of Justice.
To understand how a few legal tweaks could change the face of Zimbabwean democracy, one must look at the proposal to shift the election of the President from the public to Parliament. Currently, every Zimbabwean has the right to cast a direct vote for their leader. If this change is pushed through, the President would be chosen by MPs and Senators—most of whom are already under the tight control of the party leadership. This would effectively disenfranchise millions of voters, making the “future of the ballot box” a relic of the past. It is a “must-read” warning for anyone who values their right to choose their own government.
“I can understand if this is coming from a first-year student of law because usually we do not go that deep in explaining to them legal concepts, but I worry when I hear that coming from someone at the level of a minister or a former minister who has dealt with the law,” remarked constitutional lawyer Mavedzenge, in a scathing critique of those insisting that a referendum can be avoided. This sentiment captures the growing frustration among legal experts who see the Constitution being treated as a malleable tool rather than a supreme law.
As the debate intensifies, the role of the citizen becomes paramount. ZANU PF’s plan relies on the hope that the complexity of the legal arguments will discourage the public from engaging. They want the “gymnastics” to be seen as a technical matter for lawyers, not a fundamental question for the people. But as Tawanda Nyambirai’s U-turn demonstrates, even those who initially supported the move are finding it impossible to ignore the constitutional reality. The law is clear: you cannot change the rules of the game to benefit yourself without asking the players first.
The “Untold Story” of the 2030 Agenda is one of privilege, power, and a desperate attempt to avoid accountability. Whether it is through the reported bombing of critics’ homes or the calculated silence of diplomatic channels, the message from the top is clear: the mission must succeed at all costs. But the resilience of the Zimbabwean people, and the courage of activists who continue to speak out despite the threat of abduction, suggests that the path to 2030 will be anything but smooth.
In the end, the question is not just whether Emmerson Mnangagwa will stay in power until 2030. The question is what will be left of Zimbabwe’s democracy if he does. If the “ED 2030” slogan becomes a reality through legal trickery and state-sponsored violence, the ballot box will lose its meaning, and the Constitution will become little more than a scrap of paper. For every citizen, the time to pay attention is now, before the “gymnastics” are complete and the window for a referendum is closed forever.
The struggle for the future of Zimbabwe is being fought in the courtrooms, in the pages of gazetted Bills, and on the streets. As investigative journalists, our duty is to peel back the layers of official spin and reveal the intricate dynamics that govern justice when the powerful are involved. We must continue to ask if true accountability will ever be served, or if the “2030 Agenda” will be the final nail in the coffin of the 2013 Constitution. The story is far from over, and the world is watching to see if the people of Zimbabwe will be allowed to have their say, or if their voices will be silenced by a few strokes of a legislative pen.
Follow @MyZimbabweNews
