正在加载视频...

视频加载失败

加载此视频时出现问题。这可能是由于临时网络问题，或视频可能不可用。

🔵As debate on Constitutional Amendment Bill N0.3 intensifies, Zanu PF Treasurer-General Patrick Chinamasa, who has been at the centre of the process since its inception at the ruling party's 2024 annual conference in Bulawayo, explains why he has now changed his position on the referendum, deals with relevant provisions... on presidential term limits, length of terms, electoral system and cycle, electing a president through parliament, one man one vote or universal adult suffrage, plebiscite and official reasons for proposed changes to the political, electoral and governance systems. Chinamasa sits down with ZiFM Stereo News Digital Editor Anesu Masamvu for an in-depth interview on the growing debate on the constitutional amendments. The Constitution of Zimbabwe Amendment (No. 3) Bill, 2026, gazetted on February 16, contains 21 key clauses or provisions aimed at amending the country's 2013 constitution. The contentious initiative has divided the nation and public opinion. Authorities say this will bring long-term national stability and progress, while critics argue it is a constitutional coup and will also undermine democratic governance in the process. In this interview, Chinamasa unpacks the legal rationale behind government’s current position that no referendum is required when critics say it is unavoidable, explains why the proposed changes do not amount to a third term, and weighs in on concerns about electoral system changes, parliamentary selection of the president, and democratic legitimacy in local politics.show more

TheNewsHawks

133,014 subscribers

27,088 次观看 • 3 个月前 •via X (Twitter)

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

0 条评论

暂无评论

原始帖子的评论将显示在这里

相关视频

President Emmerson Mnangagwa's spokesman George Charamba, who is also the Deputy Chief Secretary, Presidential Communications in the Office of the President and Cabinet, has provoked a storm of controversy by claiming that parliament trumps a national referendum on constitutional amendment issues currently being debated through a legislative public consultation process. Mnangagwa and his party are using parliament to amend the constitution to extend his rule to 2030 and introduce a raft of other significant changes without going through a referendum, which civil society and opposition activists insist is a requirement in terms of the constitution. The 2013 constitution mandates that any extension of presidential term limits or removal of two five-year term limits must be approved by voters through a referendum. Critics say extending terms from five to seven years, or changing the electoral system constitutes a major subversion of this clause, requiring a referendum. However, Mnangagwa and his allies say a referendum is not needed as they are not removing term limits, but elongating the term lengths and changing the electoral cycle. Zanu PF says the amendment is not a change to the limit of two terms, but rather the length of each term (five to seven years), meaning a referendum is not constitutionally mandated. They say the amendments are meant to ensure political stability and remove "election mode toxicity," disrupting peace, governance and development. The debate centres over holding a referendum on the proposed amendments, specifically Constitution Amendment Bill No.3, which proposes extending Mnangagwa's tenure by two years andpresidential and parliamentary terms from five to seven years as well as changing the presidential election system from direct voting through popular franchise to indirect selection via parliament. The ruling Zanu PF party controls parliament, leading to calls for a popular referendum to approve these significant changes, which critics argue violate the 2013 constitution's democratic intent. Charamba said: “Those who were old enough to participate and follow proceedings of 2013 will know that even after the referendum, that outcome of the referendum still had to be processed through Parliament. What that means is that, a referendum does not usurp the power of Parliament. It simply provides a popular basis for legislative action. Otherwise, at law, the body which is recognized as responsible for any changes, be they at the level of the primary law or at the level of subsidiary laws, is Parliament. Right? So, really, you can't place the referendum in apposition to Parliament. You can't. You just cannot because the referendum does not give you a result that writes the constitution. It is parliament which is mandated to do so in terms of our law. So, really, there shouldn't be any argument at all in respect of that matter. Right?.”

President Emmerson Mnangagwa's spokesman George Charamba, who is also the Deputy Chief Secretary, Presidential Communications in the Office of the President and Cabinet, has provoked a storm of controversy by claiming that parliament trumps a national referendum on constitutional amendment issues currently being debated through a legislative public consultation process. Mnangagwa and his party are using parliament to amend the constitution to extend his rule to 2030 and introduce a raft of other significant changes without going through a referendum, which civil society and opposition activists insist is a requirement in terms of the constitution. The 2013 constitution mandates that any extension of presidential term limits or removal of two five-year term limits must be approved by voters through a referendum. Critics say extending terms from five to seven years, or changing the electoral system constitutes a major subversion of this clause, requiring a referendum. However, Mnangagwa and his allies say a referendum is not needed as they are not removing term limits, but elongating the term lengths and changing the electoral cycle. Zanu PF says the amendment is not a change to the limit of two terms, but rather the length of each term (five to seven years), meaning a referendum is not constitutionally mandated. They say the amendments are meant to ensure political stability and remove "election mode toxicity," disrupting peace, governance and development. The debate centres over holding a referendum on the proposed amendments, specifically Constitution Amendment Bill No.3, which proposes extending Mnangagwa's tenure by two years andpresidential and parliamentary terms from five to seven years as well as changing the presidential election system from direct voting through popular franchise to indirect selection via parliament. The ruling Zanu PF party controls parliament, leading to calls for a popular referendum to approve these significant changes, which critics argue violate the 2013 constitution's democratic intent. Charamba said: “Those who were old enough to participate and follow proceedings of 2013 will know that even after the referendum, that outcome of the referendum still had to be processed through Parliament. What that means is that, a referendum does not usurp the power of Parliament. It simply provides a popular basis for legislative action. Otherwise, at law, the body which is recognized as responsible for any changes, be they at the level of the primary law or at the level of subsidiary laws, is Parliament. Right? So, really, you can't place the referendum in apposition to Parliament. You can't. You just cannot because the referendum does not give you a result that writes the constitution. It is parliament which is mandated to do so in terms of our law. So, really, there shouldn't be any argument at all in respect of that matter. Right?.”

TheNewsHawks

16,586 次观看 • 4 个月前

National Democratic Working Group chairman Job Sikhala says his civic organisation rejects the contentious constitutional amendments being debated by the public amid consultations by parliament, saying a "coup is in motion" in Zimbabwe because of that, while President Emmerson Mnangagwa extends his term and changes the country's political, electoral and governance systems.

National Democratic Working Group chairman Job Sikhala says his civic organisation rejects the contentious constitutional amendments being debated by the public amid consultations by parliament, saying a "coup is in motion" in Zimbabwe because of that, while President Emmerson Mnangagwa extends his term and changes the country's political, electoral and governance systems.

TheNewsHawks

19,667 次观看 • 5 个月前

Renowned Kenyan Pan-Africanist and lawyer Professor Patrick Loch Otieno Lumumba, who has a complex relationship with the ruling Zanu PF government in Zimbabwe as he supports some of its policies like land reform and black economic empowerment but rejects in governance model, has fiercely criticised the proposed Constitution Amendment (No. 3) Bill amid ongoing heated debate about the changes to the country's political, electoral and governance systems.

Renowned Kenyan Pan-Africanist and lawyer Professor Patrick Loch Otieno Lumumba, who has a complex relationship with the ruling Zanu PF government in Zimbabwe as he supports some of its policies like land reform and black economic empowerment but rejects in governance model, has fiercely criticised the proposed Constitution Amendment (No. 3) Bill amid ongoing heated debate about the changes to the country's political, electoral and governance systems.

TheNewsHawks

21,685 次观看 • 2 个月前

As Zimbabwe approaches a critical stage in the consideration of Constitutional Amendment Bill No. 3, the Convener of the Constitution Defenders Forum, TENDAI BITI, presents a detailed analysis of the Bill, its constitutional implications, and the dangers it poses to democratic governance, constitutionalism, and the sovereignty of the people. At this crucial juncture, as Parliament prepares to deliberate on this far-reaching constitutional amendment, we encourage all citizens to engage with the issues, understand what is at stake, and participate in the defence of the Constitution. Watch the full video here: #RejectAmendmentNo3 #DefendTheConstitution

As Zimbabwe approaches a critical stage in the consideration of Constitutional Amendment Bill No. 3, the Convener of the Constitution Defenders Forum, TENDAI BITI, presents a detailed analysis of the Bill, its constitutional implications, and the dangers it poses to democratic governance, constitutionalism, and the sovereignty of the people. At this crucial juncture, as Parliament prepares to deliberate on this far-reaching constitutional amendment, we encourage all citizens to engage with the issues, understand what is at stake, and participate in the defence of the Constitution. Watch the full video here: #RejectAmendmentNo3 #DefendTheConstitution

Constitution Defenders Forum

15,189 次观看 • 2 个月前

“The People Did Not Ask for This Bill" - Hon. Karenyi Kore Rejects CAB 3 in Parliament Hon. Karenyi Kore's contribution to the parliamentary debate on Constitutional Amendment Bill No. 3 (CAB 3). During the debate, Hon. Karenyi argued that the people of Zimbabwe did not ask for the Bill and called for it to be subjected to a referendum. She also raised concerns about electoral reforms, political violence, corruption, and the need for an electoral system that citizens can trust. "The people did not ask for this Bill. CAB 3 does not create a single job and should be subjected to a referendum to avoid a conflict of interest. We want an electoral system citizens can trust. People want opportunities, not an extension of political power. The problem is not the Constitution; it is political violence and corruption. The voice of the people must remain the voice of our democracy. I stand with unemployed youth, farmers, vendors, workers, mothers and pensioners." — Hon. Karenyi Kore during debate on Constitutional Amendment Bill No. 3.

“The People Did Not Ask for This Bill" - Hon. Karenyi Kore Rejects CAB 3 in Parliament Hon. Karenyi Kore's contribution to the parliamentary debate on Constitutional Amendment Bill No. 3 (CAB 3). During the debate, Hon. Karenyi argued that the people of Zimbabwe did not ask for the Bill and called for it to be subjected to a referendum. She also raised concerns about electoral reforms, political violence, corruption, and the need for an electoral system that citizens can trust. "The people did not ask for this Bill. CAB 3 does not create a single job and should be subjected to a referendum to avoid a conflict of interest. We want an electoral system citizens can trust. People want opportunities, not an extension of political power. The problem is not the Constitution; it is political violence and corruption. The voice of the people must remain the voice of our democracy. I stand with unemployed youth, farmers, vendors, workers, mothers and pensioners." — Hon. Karenyi Kore during debate on Constitutional Amendment Bill No. 3.

Change Radio

32,595 次观看 • 2 个月前

I have listened to the debate on Constitutional Amendment Bill No. 3 between legal scholar Dr Justice Mavedzenge and political scientist Prof Jonathan Moyo today on Twitter. Without any doubt, Dr Justice Mavedzenge explained, clarified, and made ordinary people understand the issues, and more importantly, in my humble view, he won the debate on whether there is need for Constitutional Amendment Bill No. 3 to be subjected to a referendum or not. Anything done for the people, as Prof Jonathan Moyo says these monumental amendments are, should be subjected to the people. The Constitution is not ambiguous on this. It is clear that term limits should be subjected to a referendum for any change to be done legally. Under Section 328 of the Constitution of Zimbabwe, any amendment that seeks to extend the length of time a President may hold office, or to remove or alter term limits in a way that benefits an incumbent, cannot apply to the sitting President and must be subjected to constitutional safeguards. You cannot claim to be doing something for the people and yet deny those same people the right to have a say. Prof Jonathan Moyo has a right to his views, but those views must be subjected to the law for the amendments to be implemented legally, and based on what I have read in our Constitution, his views are not aligned with the law. And I am not making this up. It is in the Constitution. Even veteran Zimbabwean lawyer and former ZANUPF legal secretary, Patrick Chinamasa, has said so. In this video, he explains in front of President Mnangagwa that what they are attempting to do today, which Prof Jonathan Moyo argues does not require a referendum, would in fact require two referendums. One to remove or alter presidential term limits from five to seven years, and another to extend the sitting president’s tenure to 2030. This position was declared, and not contradicted, at a ZANUPF conference in Bulawayo. What the broader legal fraternity in Zimbabwe is saying, save for a few lawyers who have since revised their positions and now echo the same view, is that the Constitution is explicit on these prescripts. Anything else is political propaganda to win hearts and minds. The problem with propaganda is that it cannot be anchored in constitutional provisions. It rests on opinion. In this instance, however, we are not expressing opinions. We are stating what is contained in the Constitution and what ZANUPF itself has previously acknowledged. You can decide today that you want a 20-year presidential term. That is your right to hold that view, but you must subject that proposition to the law. If you believe in it, take it to the citizens in the manner prescribed by the Constitution. You cannot decide, through opinion or political argument, whether a referendum is required or not. That question is not settled by what anyone thinks. It is settled by what the law says. If the Constitution requires a referendum, then you must subject yourself to it. That is how constitutional democracy works. We know that the judiciary in Zimbabwe is captured. We know how they are going to rule, but the whole world knows the truth, that if they rule in favour of these amendments going ahead without a referendum, they are simply a captured judiciary without the respect that is required for anyone holding such an important office, and history will remember them as such.

I have listened to the debate on Constitutional Amendment Bill No. 3 between legal scholar Dr Justice Mavedzenge and political scientist Prof Jonathan Moyo today on Twitter. Without any doubt, Dr Justice Mavedzenge explained, clarified, and made ordinary people understand the issues, and more importantly, in my humble view, he won the debate on whether there is need for Constitutional Amendment Bill No. 3 to be subjected to a referendum or not. Anything done for the people, as Prof Jonathan Moyo says these monumental amendments are, should be subjected to the people. The Constitution is not ambiguous on this. It is clear that term limits should be subjected to a referendum for any change to be done legally. Under Section 328 of the Constitution of Zimbabwe, any amendment that seeks to extend the length of time a President may hold office, or to remove or alter term limits in a way that benefits an incumbent, cannot apply to the sitting President and must be subjected to constitutional safeguards. You cannot claim to be doing something for the people and yet deny those same people the right to have a say. Prof Jonathan Moyo has a right to his views, but those views must be subjected to the law for the amendments to be implemented legally, and based on what I have read in our Constitution, his views are not aligned with the law. And I am not making this up. It is in the Constitution. Even veteran Zimbabwean lawyer and former ZANUPF legal secretary, Patrick Chinamasa, has said so. In this video, he explains in front of President Mnangagwa that what they are attempting to do today, which Prof Jonathan Moyo argues does not require a referendum, would in fact require two referendums. One to remove or alter presidential term limits from five to seven years, and another to extend the sitting president’s tenure to 2030. This position was declared, and not contradicted, at a ZANUPF conference in Bulawayo. What the broader legal fraternity in Zimbabwe is saying, save for a few lawyers who have since revised their positions and now echo the same view, is that the Constitution is explicit on these prescripts. Anything else is political propaganda to win hearts and minds. The problem with propaganda is that it cannot be anchored in constitutional provisions. It rests on opinion. In this instance, however, we are not expressing opinions. We are stating what is contained in the Constitution and what ZANUPF itself has previously acknowledged. You can decide today that you want a 20-year presidential term. That is your right to hold that view, but you must subject that proposition to the law. If you believe in it, take it to the citizens in the manner prescribed by the Constitution. You cannot decide, through opinion or political argument, whether a referendum is required or not. That question is not settled by what anyone thinks. It is settled by what the law says. If the Constitution requires a referendum, then you must subject yourself to it. That is how constitutional democracy works. We know that the judiciary in Zimbabwe is captured. We know how they are going to rule, but the whole world knows the truth, that if they rule in favour of these amendments going ahead without a referendum, they are simply a captured judiciary without the respect that is required for anyone holding such an important office, and history will remember them as such.

Hopewell Chin’ono

62,366 次观看 • 6 个月前

Political tensions are fast rising in Zimbabwe over Constitutional Amendment Bill N0.3 which seeks to introduce a raft of far-reaching political, electoral and governance system changes, including elongating the electoral cycle from five to seven years and extend President Emmerson Mnangagwa's rule by two more years form 2028 to 2030. Government's explanation is that Mnangagwa will after the contentious changes get a new seven-year term, instead of the five years he is currently serving, and do a lengthened second term from 2023 to 2030 retrospectively.

Political tensions are fast rising in Zimbabwe over Constitutional Amendment Bill N0.3 which seeks to introduce a raft of far-reaching political, electoral and governance system changes, including elongating the electoral cycle from five to seven years and extend President Emmerson Mnangagwa's rule by two more years form 2028 to 2030. Government's explanation is that Mnangagwa will after the contentious changes get a new seven-year term, instead of the five years he is currently serving, and do a lengthened second term from 2023 to 2030 retrospectively.

TheNewsHawks

31,962 次观看 • 2 个月前

While the battle over Zimbabwe's constitutional amendments to extend President Emmerson Mnangagwa’s term, lengthen presidential tenure and introduce a raft of controversial political, electoral and governance reforms intensifies across the country, main opposition leader Nelson Chamisa has taken a curious position which says "there is no constitution in this country" to defend, meaning there is no need for this fight anyway except on his terms, parameters and front. Chamisa is at loggerheads with organisations like Constitution Defenders Forum led by Tendai Biti and Defend the Constitution Platform convened by Jameson Timba, among several other civic and opposition groups fighting government's bid to change the political, electoral and governance systems.

While the battle over Zimbabwe's constitutional amendments to extend President Emmerson Mnangagwa’s term, lengthen presidential tenure and introduce a raft of controversial political, electoral and governance reforms intensifies across the country, main opposition leader Nelson Chamisa has taken a curious position which says "there is no constitution in this country" to defend, meaning there is no need for this fight anyway except on his terms, parameters and front. Chamisa is at loggerheads with organisations like Constitution Defenders Forum led by Tendai Biti and Defend the Constitution Platform convened by Jameson Timba, among several other civic and opposition groups fighting government's bid to change the political, electoral and governance systems.

TheNewsHawks

109,728 次观看 • 5 个月前

Zimbabwean opposition veteran and constitutional lawyer Tendai Biti, who is former Finance minister, addressed a major town hall meeting of Zimbabweans in the United Kingdom. The public gathering was hosted by the civic organisation he leads, Constitution Defenders Forum (CDF)'s UK Federation at John Foster Hall in Leicester on Saturday. The primary focus of his address was the contentious Constitution of Zimbabwe Amendment (No.3) Bill. Biti, who serves as a convener for the CDF, provided a detailed breakdown of the proposed legislative changes and mobilied the diaspora to protect the country's constitution and democratic governance.

Zimbabwean opposition veteran and constitutional lawyer Tendai Biti, who is former Finance minister, addressed a major town hall meeting of Zimbabweans in the United Kingdom. The public gathering was hosted by the civic organisation he leads, Constitution Defenders Forum (CDF)'s UK Federation at John Foster Hall in Leicester on Saturday. The primary focus of his address was the contentious Constitution of Zimbabwe Amendment (No.3) Bill. Biti, who serves as a convener for the CDF, provided a detailed breakdown of the proposed legislative changes and mobilied the diaspora to protect the country's constitution and democratic governance.

TheNewsHawks

22,016 次观看 • 2 个月前

🚨 Cabinet has today approved a draft law that would significantly rewrite the Constitution, allowing President Mnangagwa to stay in office beyond 2028 and changing how elections are run. Next, the draft Constitutional Amendment No. 3 Bill will be gazetted by the Speaker of Parliament. It will then be tabled in Parliament after 90 days of public debate. If passed, it would amount to one of the biggest constitutional changes in years. Here are the key changes: 🔴 How the President would be chosen The Bill removes the current system of directly electing the President by popular vote. Instead, the President would be elected by Parliament. To win, a candidate must secure a majority of parliamentary votes. 🔴 Longer terms for the President and MPs The Bill increases the term of office for both the President and Members of Parliament from five years to seven years. 🔴 Changes to the Attorney-General’s office Under the Bill, anyone appointed as Attorney-General would need to meet the qualifications required of a Supreme Court judge. 🔴 A bigger Senate The Bill allows the President to appoint ten more senators, increasing the total number from 80 to 90. 🔴 Control of elections Responsibility for voter registration and the voters’ roll would move from ZEC to the Registrar-General. A new Zimbabwe Electoral Delimitation Commission would be set up to take over the task of drawing constituency and ward boundaries from ZEC. 🔴 Judicial appointments The Bill removes the public interview process for judicial appointments. This represents a shift away from the current system of open scrutiny in the selection of judges. 🔴 Role of the Defence Forces The Constitution would be amended to change how the role of the Defence Forces is described. Instead of stating that the military must “uphold” the Constitution, it would say they must act “in accordance with” the Constitution. 🔴 Abolition of the Gender Commission The Bill abolishes the Zimbabwe Gender Commission and transfers its functions to the Zimbabwe Human Rights Commission.

🚨 Cabinet has today approved a draft law that would significantly rewrite the Constitution, allowing President Mnangagwa to stay in office beyond 2028 and changing how elections are run. Next, the draft Constitutional Amendment No. 3 Bill will be gazetted by the Speaker of Parliament. It will then be tabled in Parliament after 90 days of public debate. If passed, it would amount to one of the biggest constitutional changes in years. Here are the key changes: 🔴 How the President would be chosen The Bill removes the current system of directly electing the President by popular vote. Instead, the President would be elected by Parliament. To win, a candidate must secure a majority of parliamentary votes. 🔴 Longer terms for the President and MPs The Bill increases the term of office for both the President and Members of Parliament from five years to seven years. 🔴 Changes to the Attorney-General’s office Under the Bill, anyone appointed as Attorney-General would need to meet the qualifications required of a Supreme Court judge. 🔴 A bigger Senate The Bill allows the President to appoint ten more senators, increasing the total number from 80 to 90. 🔴 Control of elections Responsibility for voter registration and the voters’ roll would move from ZEC to the Registrar-General. A new Zimbabwe Electoral Delimitation Commission would be set up to take over the task of drawing constituency and ward boundaries from ZEC. 🔴 Judicial appointments The Bill removes the public interview process for judicial appointments. This represents a shift away from the current system of open scrutiny in the selection of judges. 🔴 Role of the Defence Forces The Constitution would be amended to change how the role of the Defence Forces is described. Instead of stating that the military must “uphold” the Constitution, it would say they must act “in accordance with” the Constitution. 🔴 Abolition of the Gender Commission The Bill abolishes the Zimbabwe Gender Commission and transfers its functions to the Zimbabwe Human Rights Commission.

newZWire

60,429 次观看 • 6 个月前

Professor Lovemore Madhuku in his Own Words Making the Case for Parliament to Indirectly Elect the President as an Electoral College: “We must not put in the Constitution of the country a provision that is dependant on what happens in a political party. That’s the point I’m making. We must never say in our Constitution of Zimbabwe that if a sitting President dies or resigns, we will wait to hear what the political party of that President is saying. No. That is not the best way of running a country. Political parties remain the preserve of those people who are in those political parties. But the country is run on the basis of either an election by the people—direct election—or you have Parliament as an institution sitting as an electoral college. Where parties have influence, they must do the influence within Parliament, but never to allow the political party to sit there to say I’m giving you this President, and so forth. That’s the point I’m making. And on that point, I’m making it right across the world; that’s what they do.” - Professor Madhuku, addressing a “Heal Zimbabwe Trust” public meeting in Harare on 22 February 2020. COMMENT: Professor Lovemore Madhuku’s 2020 remarks make a clear, powerful and enduring case for Clause 3 of the Constitution of Zimbabwe (Amendment No. 3) H.B.I. Bill, 2026. This clause replaces the direct election of the President with an indirect election by Parliament sitting jointly as an electoral college; both after every general election and, when necessary, to fill any vacancy in the office of President. The current direct election of the President was first introduced in anticipation of a legislated one-party-one-man rule through Constitution Amendment No. 7, Act 1987 in the old Lancaster Constitution repealed in 2013. Professor Madhuku put it plainly: The Constitution should not—as it currently does— depend on the internal decisions of a political party to select a successor to the President of the country. When a sitting President dies, resigns or is removed, the nation should not have to wait and hear what that President’s political party “is saying.” That is not a constitutionally proper way to run a country. Political parties exist for their own members. The country, however, belongs to all Zimbabweans. The proper solution is straightforward: Parliament—the institution chosen by the people—should act as the electoral college. Inside that open forum, parties may exercise their influence transparently and accountably. No party should ever stand outside the Constitution and simply “give” the nation its next leader. This principle is not abstract. Worldwide, presidential by-elections to fill mid-term vacancies are extremely rare. Most stable presidential systems instead use automatic succession by a deputy or, increasingly, allow the legislature to elect a successor who serves out the remainder of the term. These arrangements place national continuity and stability above partisan interests. Clause 3 of the Bill follows exactly this proven path. By giving Parliament the clear duty to elect the President—whether at the start of a new term or in an unforeseen vacancy—Zimbabwe will secure stronger democratic stability, and keep the highest office firmly within the people’s constitutional framework rather than the private control of any single party. In short, Clause 3 is a mature, practical and principled reform that directly honours Professor Madhuku’s wise 2020 counsel. As such, it deserves the full support of every well-meaning Zimbabwean who values good governance, democratic constitutionalism, institutional integrity and the long-term strength of the country’s democracy in the national interest!

Professor Lovemore Madhuku in his Own Words Making the Case for Parliament to Indirectly Elect the President as an Electoral College: “We must not put in the Constitution of the country a provision that is dependant on what happens in a political party. That’s the point I’m making. We must never say in our Constitution of Zimbabwe that if a sitting President dies or resigns, we will wait to hear what the political party of that President is saying. No. That is not the best way of running a country. Political parties remain the preserve of those people who are in those political parties. But the country is run on the basis of either an election by the people—direct election—or you have Parliament as an institution sitting as an electoral college. Where parties have influence, they must do the influence within Parliament, but never to allow the political party to sit there to say I’m giving you this President, and so forth. That’s the point I’m making. And on that point, I’m making it right across the world; that’s what they do.” - Professor Madhuku, addressing a “Heal Zimbabwe Trust” public meeting in Harare on 22 February 2020. COMMENT: Professor Lovemore Madhuku’s 2020 remarks make a clear, powerful and enduring case for Clause 3 of the Constitution of Zimbabwe (Amendment No. 3) H.B.I. Bill, 2026. This clause replaces the direct election of the President with an indirect election by Parliament sitting jointly as an electoral college; both after every general election and, when necessary, to fill any vacancy in the office of President. The current direct election of the President was first introduced in anticipation of a legislated one-party-one-man rule through Constitution Amendment No. 7, Act 1987 in the old Lancaster Constitution repealed in 2013. Professor Madhuku put it plainly: The Constitution should not—as it currently does— depend on the internal decisions of a political party to select a successor to the President of the country. When a sitting President dies, resigns or is removed, the nation should not have to wait and hear what that President’s political party “is saying.” That is not a constitutionally proper way to run a country. Political parties exist for their own members. The country, however, belongs to all Zimbabweans. The proper solution is straightforward: Parliament—the institution chosen by the people—should act as the electoral college. Inside that open forum, parties may exercise their influence transparently and accountably. No party should ever stand outside the Constitution and simply “give” the nation its next leader. This principle is not abstract. Worldwide, presidential by-elections to fill mid-term vacancies are extremely rare. Most stable presidential systems instead use automatic succession by a deputy or, increasingly, allow the legislature to elect a successor who serves out the remainder of the term. These arrangements place national continuity and stability above partisan interests. Clause 3 of the Bill follows exactly this proven path. By giving Parliament the clear duty to elect the President—whether at the start of a new term or in an unforeseen vacancy—Zimbabwe will secure stronger democratic stability, and keep the highest office firmly within the people’s constitutional framework rather than the private control of any single party. In short, Clause 3 is a mature, practical and principled reform that directly honours Professor Madhuku’s wise 2020 counsel. As such, it deserves the full support of every well-meaning Zimbabwean who values good governance, democratic constitutionalism, institutional integrity and the long-term strength of the country’s democracy in the national interest!

Prof Jonathan Moyo

88,259 次观看 • 3 个月前

The highly controversial Constitutional Amendment Bill No. 3, which seeks to extend President Emmerson Mnangagwa’s term of office by an extra two years and increase the presidential term from five to seven years, has now formally entered the parliamentary process in Zimbabwe. Speaking in Parliament today, its official main driver, Justice Minister Ziyambi Ziyambi, said all Members of Parliament would be given an opportunity to debate the Bill before it is eventually put to a vote. The Bill seeks to fundamentally alter key aspects of Zimbabwe’s governance system, including the structure of the executive, local government, and the composition of Parliament. The Bill will now be debated in Parliament and could either be passed or rejected. Those opposed to the proposed amendments within both ZANUPF and the country maintain that such far-reaching constitutional changes require a national referendum as provided for in the Constitution of Zimbabwe rather than being decided solely through Parliament. Retired military generals who met President Mnangagwa on two separate occasions say he rejected their pleas to either shelve the Bill or submit it to a referendum. According to the generals, the president dismissed their concerns by telling them, “Whoever wins, wins.” The retired generals have since declared that the Bill will never become law, setting the stage for what some fear could become a major bloody confrontation within ZANUPF between factions aligned to President Mnangagwa and Vice President General Constantino Chiwenga, involving the military. If the Bill becomes law and extends President Mnangagwa’s stay in office, it will effectively close General Chiwenga’s pathway to the presidency, deepening tensions within the ruling party over the question of succession, which in the past triggered the military coup that removed Robert Mugabe after thirty seven year in power. The battle over Constitutional Amendment Bill No. 3 is therefore not only about constitutional reform, but also about the future balance of power within Zimbabwe’s governing elite. According to Justice Minister Ziyambi Ziyambi, the vote on the Bill will not be conducted by secret ballot. Instead, Members of Parliament will vote openly, either by a show of hands or by physically moving to one side of the chamber to vote in favour and to the other side to vote against the Bill. The Zimbabwean Constitutional Court will ultimately have to decide whether the Bill should be subjected to a referendum or not. That decision is likely to have profound political and constitutional consequences. If the court rules against a referendum, it could trigger a constitutional crisis and become a flashpoint for future political struggles over the legitimacy of the constitutional amendment process and the exercise of state power. If President Mnangagwa prevails, he will become the first leader of ZANUPF not to be removed from power by the military. The party’s first leader, Reverend Ndabaningi Sithole, was removed through ZANLA military action during the liberation struggle, while its second leader, Robert Mugabe, was removed by the Zimbabwean military in November 2017. If Mnangagwa emerges triumphant from this process and serves out his political ambitions without military intervention, he will become the first leader of ZANUPF to leave or die in office without being removed by the military, breaking a pattern that has shaped the party’s leadership history for decades.

The highly controversial Constitutional Amendment Bill No. 3, which seeks to extend President Emmerson Mnangagwa’s term of office by an extra two years and increase the presidential term from five to seven years, has now formally entered the parliamentary process in Zimbabwe. Speaking in Parliament today, its official main driver, Justice Minister Ziyambi Ziyambi, said all Members of Parliament would be given an opportunity to debate the Bill before it is eventually put to a vote. The Bill seeks to fundamentally alter key aspects of Zimbabwe’s governance system, including the structure of the executive, local government, and the composition of Parliament. The Bill will now be debated in Parliament and could either be passed or rejected. Those opposed to the proposed amendments within both ZANUPF and the country maintain that such far-reaching constitutional changes require a national referendum as provided for in the Constitution of Zimbabwe rather than being decided solely through Parliament. Retired military generals who met President Mnangagwa on two separate occasions say he rejected their pleas to either shelve the Bill or submit it to a referendum. According to the generals, the president dismissed their concerns by telling them, “Whoever wins, wins.” The retired generals have since declared that the Bill will never become law, setting the stage for what some fear could become a major bloody confrontation within ZANUPF between factions aligned to President Mnangagwa and Vice President General Constantino Chiwenga, involving the military. If the Bill becomes law and extends President Mnangagwa’s stay in office, it will effectively close General Chiwenga’s pathway to the presidency, deepening tensions within the ruling party over the question of succession, which in the past triggered the military coup that removed Robert Mugabe after thirty seven year in power. The battle over Constitutional Amendment Bill No. 3 is therefore not only about constitutional reform, but also about the future balance of power within Zimbabwe’s governing elite. According to Justice Minister Ziyambi Ziyambi, the vote on the Bill will not be conducted by secret ballot. Instead, Members of Parliament will vote openly, either by a show of hands or by physically moving to one side of the chamber to vote in favour and to the other side to vote against the Bill. The Zimbabwean Constitutional Court will ultimately have to decide whether the Bill should be subjected to a referendum or not. That decision is likely to have profound political and constitutional consequences. If the court rules against a referendum, it could trigger a constitutional crisis and become a flashpoint for future political struggles over the legitimacy of the constitutional amendment process and the exercise of state power. If President Mnangagwa prevails, he will become the first leader of ZANUPF not to be removed from power by the military. The party’s first leader, Reverend Ndabaningi Sithole, was removed through ZANLA military action during the liberation struggle, while its second leader, Robert Mugabe, was removed by the Zimbabwean military in November 2017. If Mnangagwa emerges triumphant from this process and serves out his political ambitions without military intervention, he will become the first leader of ZANUPF to leave or die in office without being removed by the military, breaking a pattern that has shaped the party’s leadership history for decades.

Hopewell Chin’ono

45,815 次观看 • 2 个月前

A court in Zimbabwe has ordered former finance minister Tendai Biti to surrender his passport and report to the police twice a week. Biti, who is leading opposition to planned constitutional amendments that would allow 83-year-old President Emmerson Mnangagwa to extend his rule and have the presidency elected by Parliament rather than the public, is also barred from convening or addressing public gatherings. Mnangagwa, who came to power after a popular military coup against Mugabe in 2017, has said he will step down when his second term ends in 2028. However, he has not publicly opposed his ruling ZANU-PF party’s push to extend his term. His Cabinet approved the amendment proposal in February before sending it to Parliament, where the ruling party holds a majority. The proposed changes would postpone elections to 2030, allow the president to be elected by Parliament instead of by popular vote and extend both the presidential term and those of members of Parliament from five to seven years. Police in recent months have banned meetings and arrested people for gathering to express opposition to the proposed changes to ‌the constitution. Source: The Associated Press. File footage: SABC News.

A court in Zimbabwe has ordered former finance minister Tendai Biti to surrender his passport and report to the police twice a week. Biti, who is leading opposition to planned constitutional amendments that would allow 83-year-old President Emmerson Mnangagwa to extend his rule and have the presidency elected by Parliament rather than the public, is also barred from convening or addressing public gatherings. Mnangagwa, who came to power after a popular military coup against Mugabe in 2017, has said he will step down when his second term ends in 2028. However, he has not publicly opposed his ruling ZANU-PF party’s push to extend his term. His Cabinet approved the amendment proposal in February before sending it to Parliament, where the ruling party holds a majority. The proposed changes would postpone elections to 2030, allow the president to be elected by Parliament instead of by popular vote and extend both the presidential term and those of members of Parliament from five to seven years. Police in recent months have banned meetings and arrested people for gathering to express opposition to the proposed changes to ‌the constitution. Source: The Associated Press. File footage: SABC News.

Kennedy Wandera

35,292 次观看 • 5 个月前

The Zimbabwean Parliament has adjourned until tomorrow. This is ZANUPF Member of Parliament Perseverance Zhou. This is the quality of debate that unfolded this afternoon in Zimbabwe’s Parliament as MPs debated the controversial Constitutional Amendment Bill No. 3, which seeks to extend Mnangagwa’s term of office to 2030. It was a bootlicking festival led by the President’s most enthusiastic sycophants. In this video, she compares Emmerson Mnangagwa to French football superstar Kylian Mbappé and argues that Mnangagwa should not step down in 2028 when his term of office ends. Using a football analogy, she suggests that Mnangagwa should not be stopped because he is already in the 18-yard box and close to scoring. This is what Zimbabwe’s constitutional debate has been reduced to. Instead of discussing the long-term implications of altering the Constitution, strengthening democratic institutions, and protecting the principle of term limits, Parliament is being treated to football analogies designed to justify extending the tenure of a sitting president. Whether one supports or opposes Constitutional Amendment Bill No. 3, Zimbabweans should expect a higher standard of debate from lawmakers entrusted with shaping the country’s constitutional future.

The Zimbabwean Parliament has adjourned until tomorrow. This is ZANUPF Member of Parliament Perseverance Zhou. This is the quality of debate that unfolded this afternoon in Zimbabwe’s Parliament as MPs debated the controversial Constitutional Amendment Bill No. 3, which seeks to extend Mnangagwa’s term of office to 2030. It was a bootlicking festival led by the President’s most enthusiastic sycophants. In this video, she compares Emmerson Mnangagwa to French football superstar Kylian Mbappé and argues that Mnangagwa should not step down in 2028 when his term of office ends. Using a football analogy, she suggests that Mnangagwa should not be stopped because he is already in the 18-yard box and close to scoring. This is what Zimbabwe’s constitutional debate has been reduced to. Instead of discussing the long-term implications of altering the Constitution, strengthening democratic institutions, and protecting the principle of term limits, Parliament is being treated to football analogies designed to justify extending the tenure of a sitting president. Whether one supports or opposes Constitutional Amendment Bill No. 3, Zimbabweans should expect a higher standard of debate from lawmakers entrusted with shaping the country’s constitutional future.

Hopewell Chin’ono

62,784 次观看 • 2 个月前

An hour ago, I was on South Africa’s public broadcaster, the SABC News News discussing the implications of Zimbabwe’s new law, Constitutional Amendment Bill No. 3, which came into effect two days ago. The amendment extends President Emmerson Mnangagwa’s term of office by an additional two years to 2030, removes the direct election of the President by citizens and transfers that responsibility to Parliament, and effectively removes the elections that had been scheduled for 2028. We also discussed what these changes mean not only for Zimbabwe but for the entire region, particularly South Africa, which has borne the brunt of migration from Zimbabwe, both legal and illegal, driven largely by the country’s prolonged economic and political crises. What happens in Zimbabwe never stays in Zimbabwe. Political instability, economic decline, and democratic backsliding inevitably have consequences for neighbouring countries. That is why Constitutional Amendment Bill No. 3 is not merely a Zimbabwean issue; it is a regional issue with far-reaching political, economic, and social implications.

An hour ago, I was on South Africa’s public broadcaster, the SABC News News discussing the implications of Zimbabwe’s new law, Constitutional Amendment Bill No. 3, which came into effect two days ago. The amendment extends President Emmerson Mnangagwa’s term of office by an additional two years to 2030, removes the direct election of the President by citizens and transfers that responsibility to Parliament, and effectively removes the elections that had been scheduled for 2028. We also discussed what these changes mean not only for Zimbabwe but for the entire region, particularly South Africa, which has borne the brunt of migration from Zimbabwe, both legal and illegal, driven largely by the country’s prolonged economic and political crises. What happens in Zimbabwe never stays in Zimbabwe. Political instability, economic decline, and democratic backsliding inevitably have consequences for neighbouring countries. That is why Constitutional Amendment Bill No. 3 is not merely a Zimbabwean issue; it is a regional issue with far-reaching political, economic, and social implications.

Hopewell Chin’ono

106,474 次观看 • 1 个月前

#OppositionDividedWeakParalysed While main opposition leader Nelson Chamisa has relatively been quiet - conspicuous by his absence from action and loud silence, except for his occasional political posturing and symbolic resistance with a religious-style approach under his Agenda 2026 in a bid to reboot his sluggish career, his former ally in the opposition trenches Tendai Biti has taken a more vocal, confrontational, high-profile legal and public-outreach role opposing the government on its constitutional amendments to facilitate President Emmerson Mnangagwa's term extension and a raft of reforms changing the political, electoral and governance systems. Upon his return to active politics in January after a controversial two-year hiatus following the capture by Zanu PF of his CCC opposition party, Chamisa focused on "Agenda 2026" as a movement intended to rebuild Zimbabwe through a citizen-driven dialogue rather than traditional party politics. While he has launched this initiative and occasionally commented on social media to oppose Zanu PF's "2050 agenda" - incomprehensibly referring to the 2030 agenda - his public engagement has been characterised more by statements of intent, use of symbols and preaching "change" rather than organising grassroots resistance given his huge popular support base. He has defended his strange "No to 2050" social media post and castigated violence against citizens opposing constitutional changes, maintaining a symbolic rather than confrontational role. In the process, Chamisa has now become the weak link within the opposition movement. By constrast, Biti, who has no popular social base, has been highly vocal, acting as the convener of the Constitution Defenders Forum. Others who have been vocal include Jameson Timba as Convenor of Constitutional Defence Forum, Job Sikhala who leads National Democratic Working Group, Lovemore Madhuku and his National Constitutional Assembly, and strong-willed opposition figure Jacob Ngarivhume, among others. Biti has launched a vigorous campaign against Constitution Amendment No. 3, which aims to extend presidential terms beyond 2028 and change the political system. He has referred to the proposed changes as "legal lunacy" and a "quiet constitutional coup". Furthermore, Biti has taken the fight directly to the people, conducting door-to-door mobilisation drives and street campaigns in areas like Chitungwiza and Mutare to educate citizens on the implications of the reforms. Alongside other activists, he has filed urgent court bids to stop police from disrupting their private meetings regarding the constitutional reforms. As a result, Biti was yesterday arrested while organising a rally against the amendments in Mutare. Biti has invited Chamisa to work with him and others in fighting the current constitutional changes. However, Chamisa, despite his massive support, has distanced himself from Biti, Timba and others. He has been pussyfooting and claiming there is no constitution to defend, alarming his opposition allies. Despite pressure to take a form a party and adopt more aggressive approach, Chamisa maintains a propositional posture, making his politics and pronouncements merely symbolic opposition, not serious resistance anymore. This comes as the opposition is divided, weak and paralysed. The absence of a strong opposition and check on power has allowed for the proposal of constitutional amendments that extend the presidential terms from five to seven years and Mnangagwa's term extension, accompanied by raft of contentious changes in the political system. As formal opposition parties have fragmented and weakened, civil society groups and grassroots movements have increasingly taken centre stage in protesting government policies, human rights issues and the current constitutional amendments.

TheNewsHawks

12,003 次观看 • 5 个月前

🟢Harare lawyer Doug Coltart says despite last week's passage of Constitution Amendment Bill N0.3 and the arguments by authorities, the contentious far-reaching legislative changes need to be subjected a referendum. This is one of the most contested issues around the constitutional amendments overwhelmingly voted for by the National Assembly last week. Attorney-General Virginia Mabiza and others supporting CAB3 have steadfastly rejected the demand for a referendum, saying it is not needed in this instance.

🟢Harare lawyer Doug Coltart says despite last week's passage of Constitution Amendment Bill N0.3 and the arguments by authorities, the contentious far-reaching legislative changes need to be subjected a referendum. This is one of the most contested issues around the constitutional amendments overwhelmingly voted for by the National Assembly last week. Attorney-General Virginia Mabiza and others supporting CAB3 have steadfastly rejected the demand for a referendum, saying it is not needed in this instance.

TheNewsHawks

19,842 次观看 • 2 个月前

Zimbabwe Defence Forces role as political arbiter and power broker removed By Ruvimbo Muchenje The Zimbabwe Defence Forces (ZDF)'s role as the country's political arbiter, power broker and kingmaker is now being decisively removed, changing the country's political landscape and its volatile dynamics in the process. This will have far-reaching political implications as the Zimbabwean military has been a power broker for a long time due to sustained militarisation of politics and the professional bureaucracy, particularly under the late former president Robert Mugabe and subsequently President Emmerson Mnangagwa. The army's critical role in local politics dates back to the days of the liberation struggle, with the Mgagao Declaration of 1975 that paved way for the late former president Robert Mugabe to seize power in Zanu from Ndabaningi Sithole being an example of that influence. For decades, the army has been the ultimate political arbiter, bound by Section 212 of the constitution to defend both the nation's territorial integrity and "to uphold" the constitution, giving it authority to self-deploy under the guise of upholding the supreme law as it did during the November 2017 coup which first - ironically - brought Mnangagwa to power before he legitimised himself through subsequent elections in 2018 and 2023. However, Constitutional Amendment Bill (No.3) introduces major legal changes to the country's political, electoral governance architecture, most notably extending presidential and parliamentary terms, allowing parliament to elect the President, and subtly altering the constitutional mandate of the ZDF. The amendments currently going through parliament propose a critical, yet subtle change that is far-reaching. The words "to uphold" the constitution are being stripped away, replaced by a mandate to act simply "in accordance with the constitution". By altering the specific phrasing of the army's duties and allowing parliament to elect the president instead of through a direct popular vote, Mnangagwa's government is effectively clipping the military’s institutional wings. Presenting his key second reading speech on Constitutional Amendment (N0.3) Bill to parliament on Wednesday after he had introduced the proposals to parliament the previous day, Ziyambi said the army must act "in accordance with the constitution", not have a special responsibility to "uphold the constitution" because "they are not a parallel constitutional authority". Ziyambi said: "I now turn to the function of the Zimbabwe Defence Forces, Clause 16. Clause 16 amends the words that describe the function of our Defence Forces, replacing the phrase, 'To uphold this Constitution' with the phrase, 'In accordance with this Constitution'. It has been suggested that this weakens the constitutional position of the military. The truth is precisely the opposite. The amendment strengthens the subordination of the military to the constitution and I want to explain why b ecause the point is important and it is widely misunderstood. Consider the question honestly. Either the Defence Forces are subject to the Constitution, or they are a core equal guardian of it, standing alongside the elected President, the elected P arliamen t and the courts. If they are subject to the constitution, as in every constitutional democracy, they must be in accordance with the constitution, which is the correct exp ression of that subordination and the old wording which cast the military as an ind ependent upholder of the constitution in its own right was the anomaly. The institution whose function is to uphold the constitution, is the elected and appointed civilian institutions. The President takes an oath to uphold it. Judges take an oath to uphold it. Members of this House take an oath to uphold it. The Defence Forces protect the nation within the constitutional framework that those civilian institutions uphold and interpret. They are not a parallel constitutional authority."

Zimbabwe Defence Forces role as political arbiter and power broker removed By Ruvimbo Muchenje The Zimbabwe Defence Forces (ZDF)'s role as the country's political arbiter, power broker and kingmaker is now being decisively removed, changing the country's political landscape and its volatile dynamics in the process. This will have far-reaching political implications as the Zimbabwean military has been a power broker for a long time due to sustained militarisation of politics and the professional bureaucracy, particularly under the late former president Robert Mugabe and subsequently President Emmerson Mnangagwa. The army's critical role in local politics dates back to the days of the liberation struggle, with the Mgagao Declaration of 1975 that paved way for the late former president Robert Mugabe to seize power in Zanu from Ndabaningi Sithole being an example of that influence. For decades, the army has been the ultimate political arbiter, bound by Section 212 of the constitution to defend both the nation's territorial integrity and "to uphold" the constitution, giving it authority to self-deploy under the guise of upholding the supreme law as it did during the November 2017 coup which first - ironically - brought Mnangagwa to power before he legitimised himself through subsequent elections in 2018 and 2023. However, Constitutional Amendment Bill (No.3) introduces major legal changes to the country's political, electoral governance architecture, most notably extending presidential and parliamentary terms, allowing parliament to elect the President, and subtly altering the constitutional mandate of the ZDF. The amendments currently going through parliament propose a critical, yet subtle change that is far-reaching. The words "to uphold" the constitution are being stripped away, replaced by a mandate to act simply "in accordance with the constitution". By altering the specific phrasing of the army's duties and allowing parliament to elect the president instead of through a direct popular vote, Mnangagwa's government is effectively clipping the military’s institutional wings. Presenting his key second reading speech on Constitutional Amendment (N0.3) Bill to parliament on Wednesday after he had introduced the proposals to parliament the previous day, Ziyambi said the army must act "in accordance with the constitution", not have a special responsibility to "uphold the constitution" because "they are not a parallel constitutional authority". Ziyambi said: "I now turn to the function of the Zimbabwe Defence Forces, Clause 16. Clause 16 amends the words that describe the function of our Defence Forces, replacing the phrase, 'To uphold this Constitution' with the phrase, 'In accordance with this Constitution'. It has been suggested that this weakens the constitutional position of the military. The truth is precisely the opposite. The amendment strengthens the subordination of the military to the constitution and I want to explain why b ecause the point is important and it is widely misunderstood. Consider the question honestly. Either the Defence Forces are subject to the Constitution, or they are a core equal guardian of it, standing alongside the elected President, the elected P arliamen t and the courts. If they are subject to the constitution, as in every constitutional democracy, they must be in accordance with the constitution, which is the correct exp ression of that subordination and the old wording which cast the military as an ind ependent upholder of the constitution in its own right was the anomaly. The institution whose function is to uphold the constitution, is the elected and appointed civilian institutions. The President takes an oath to uphold it. Judges take an oath to uphold it. Members of this House take an oath to uphold it. The Defence Forces protect the nation within the constitutional framework that those civilian institutions uphold and interpret. They are not a parallel constitutional authority."

TheNewsHawks

24,828 次观看 • 2 个月前

"When it rains, it pours": Zimbabwe's🇿🇼 President Emmerson Mnangagwa, who is 83 years old, was expected to step down after serving two five-year terms, but has now rallied his cabinet to adopt proposed constitutional amendments that lengthens presidential terms from five years to seven. When approved by parliament, Mnangagwa will be in office until 2030. The proposed changes by his cabinet on Tuesday also take power from the people. No direct popular vote. Zimbabweans will no longer vote for a president; instead, parliament will elect the president. Both the President and Parliament will serve a term of seven years. Mnangagwa's ZANU-PF party has been in power since independence, and holds a supermajority in both Houses of Parliament. This makes it even easier to amend the constitution. He assumed power following a military coup that removed longtime leader Robert Mugabe in 2017.

"When it rains, it pours": Zimbabwe's🇿🇼 President Emmerson Mnangagwa, who is 83 years old, was expected to step down after serving two five-year terms, but has now rallied his cabinet to adopt proposed constitutional amendments that lengthens presidential terms from five years to seven. When approved by parliament, Mnangagwa will be in office until 2030. The proposed changes by his cabinet on Tuesday also take power from the people. No direct popular vote. Zimbabweans will no longer vote for a president; instead, parliament will elect the president. Both the President and Parliament will serve a term of seven years. Mnangagwa's ZANU-PF party has been in power since independence, and holds a supermajority in both Houses of Parliament. This makes it even easier to amend the constitution. He assumed power following a military coup that removed longtime leader Robert Mugabe in 2017.

Kennedy Wandera

44,979 次观看 • 6 个月前