Video wird geladen...

Video konnte nicht geladen werden

Beim Laden dieses Videos ist ein Problem aufgetreten. Dies könnte an einem vorübergehenden Netzwerkproblem liegen oder das Video ist möglicherweise nicht verfügbar.

QUESTION: What is the relationship between section 91(2)—the term limit provision—and section 95(2)—the term length provision in the Constitution of Zimbabwe (2013)? ANSWER: Section 91(2) is the term-limit provision. It regulates the President’s tenure by limiting the length of time that he or she may hold or occupy the... Presidency as a public officer to a maximum of two terms—whether consecutive or not—where three or more years’ service is deemed a full term. By contrast, section 95(2) is the term-length provision. It regulates the electoral cycle of the Presidency as an office or institution by defining a single term as five years (now proposed to be seven years under Clause 4 of the Constitution of Zimbabwe (Amendment No. 3) H.B. 1 Bill, 2026). The relationship between sections 91(2) and 95(2) is therefore as clear and straightforward as that between a truck driver and a 500 km highway: section 91(2) limits the driver, while section 95(2) defines the length of the highway. Section 91(2) caps the time any individual may occupy the Presidency; section 95(2) sets the institutional length or duration of each presidential term or electoral cycle. This distinction matters because a persistent misconception claims that section 91(2) is not the presidential term-limit provision but merely a qualification rule for election as President, asserts that section 95(2) is the actual term-limit clause. Many who advance this incorrect view rely on one sentence in the obiter dictum by Patel JCC at paragraph 50 of the precedent-setting judgment in Marx Mupungu v Minister of Justice, Legal and Parliamentary Affairs & 6 Ors (CCZ 7/21, 2021) [see: which includes section 95(2) among examples of term-limit provisions. That misconception overlooks a fundamental constitutional imperative: a presidential term-limit provision is, by definition, a disqualifier for election as President. Term limits on presidents are necessarily about elections. They limit qualification for election. Where there is no presidential term limit, re-election is unlimited. In a recent discussion with D. Tinashé Hofisi on 23 April 2026 [ on the Constitution of Zimbabwe (Amendment No. 3) Bill hosted by The Southern African Times, I explained the relationship between the two sections. Below is the verbatim text of the attached clip extracted from the discussion addressing the import of section 91(2) and its relationship with section 95(2): ME: “It’s a clear term limit provision; is similar to term limit provisions in other jurisdictions that are comparable to Zimbabwe. And when you say it doesn’t have time, it doesn’t make reference to time, I’m at a loss as to what that means, and where that is coming from, with respect to Dr Hofisi, because it says a person is disqualified for election as President or appointment as Vice President if he or she has already held office as President under this constitution for two terms. This is the only section which tells us how many terms a President is limited to. Section 95 doesn’t even tell us that he’s limited to one term. There’s no limit. This one limits the President to two terms. And the two terms, the last time I checked, was a reference to time. And in this case, the section doesn’t leave us doubting or not knowing what a term is or what sort of time a term is. Because it continues to say these two terms are counted whether they follow each other or not. But most significantly, for the purpose of the limit on the President, the term limit on the President, which is provided in this section: three or more years. That’s time. You said there’s no time here. Three years is time. The length of time is three years minimum, and the maximum is more. It’s not defined here. It’s three or more years. It’s more because that is subject to what the relevant law about electoral cycles says is the electoral cycle of the institution that the President occupies”. [verbatim text of clip from The 500 km Highway Metaphor: Distinguishing Sections 91(2) and 95(2) of the Constitution To clearly understand the relationship between sections 91(2) and 95(2), imagine the Presidency as a magnificent 500-kilometre highway built and maintained by section 95(2) of the Constitution. This provision creates the presidential highway itself: it defines the office of the President as a permanent public institution and sets the exact length of each single term — currently five years, now proposed under the Bill to be seven years. It establishes a structured, recurring electoral cycle that belongs to the people of Zimbabwe, ensuring regular, orderly renewal of leadership. Without section 95(2), there would be no defined road — only an open plain of indefinite power. Section 91(2) governs the individual truck driver on that highway. It imposes an absolute lifetime limit: no person may complete more than two full trips along this 500 km highway, whether those trips are taken back-to-back or years apart. Any segment of 300 kilometres or more — that is, three or more years in office — counts as one complete trip. There are no partial credits or exceptions. After two full trips, the driver is permanently disqualified from driving on that highway, again. The distinction is sharp and deliberate: Section 95(2) builds the highway and determines the length of each journey. Section 91(2) limits how many times any single individual is permitted to travel it. One structures the office; the other limits the person who occupies it. Together, they form the Constitution’s twin safeguards — working in perfect harmony to keep power temporary, accountable, and subordinate to the will of the people. To conflate their distinct roles is to weaken these vital safeguards and to invite the very tyranny the Constitution was written to prevent. The Profound and Protective Meaning of “Three or More Years” in Section 91(2) of the Constitution At the heart of section 91(2) lies one of the Constitution’s most brilliant safeguards: “for the purpose of this subsection, three or more years’ service is deemed to be a full term.” The word “more” is no mere drafting flourish—it is deliberate constitutional genius. It declares that section 91(2), as the personal lifetime term-limit provision, imposes no rigid numerical ceiling. Subject to what is reasonable and justifiable in a constitutional democracy under section 95(2), service of four years, five years, six years, seven years, or even longer—once it exceeds the three-year threshold—is unequivocally deemed a complete term for the purpose of lifetime disqualification. This flexibility is not a loophole; it is a wise design that refuses to let the term-limit clause under section 91(2) become brittle or easily evaded. This open-ended “more” is anchored in section 91(2)’s harmonious relationship with section 95(2)(b), which defines the official electoral cycle of the Presidency as a permanent public institution whose five-year lifespan is inextricably intertwined with that of Parliament. Section 91(2) places an iron-clad personal disqualification on the individual; section 95(2) defines the dimensions of the highway itself. Crucially, section 95(2) is not a term-limit provision under subsections (1) and (7) of section 328. Unlike the referendum-protected personal term limit in section 91(2), it may be amended by Parliament under section 328(5) without a national referendum. This distinction is no accident; it is constitutional wisdom. It allows the institutional framework of the Presidency to evolve with the nation’s needs while the unbreakable personal lifetime bar on any single individual remains forever sacrosanct. All told, sections 91(2) and 95(2) differ in character and purpose—one limits the President, the other structures the public office or institution of the Presidency—yet they stand together as the Constitution’s twin guardians. This elegant complementarity keeps presidential power temporary, accountable, and forever subordinate to the sovereign will of the people through the institution or office of the Presidency. To respect and defend this relationship is to honour the very soul of the Constitution: ensuring that no individual can ever turn the highway into their driveway—turning the public office into a personal fiefdom—and that the highway of governance remains open, regularly renewed, and eternally in faithful service to the people of Zimbabwe. This is the promise the Constitution makes!show more

Prof Jonathan Moyo

1,019,827 subscribers

12,711 Aufrufe • vor 2 Monaten •via X (Twitter)

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

0 Kommentare

Keine Kommentare verfügbar

Kommentare vom Original-Post werden hier angezeigt

Ähnliche Videos

I wore this nation's uniform for decades. My oath was to Zimbabwe to its Constitution, to its people. NOT to any individual. NOT to any agenda that places one man's ambition above the supreme law of the land. Rise, Zimbabwe. Rise and DEFEND YOUR CONSTITUTION. #NoTo2030 CAB3 is not reform. It is a legislative instrument designed to extend presidential tenure beyond what Section 91(2) of the Constitution permits. Section 328 prohibits exactly this no amendment shall advantage a sitting president on term limits.

I wore this nation's uniform for decades. My oath was to Zimbabwe to its Constitution, to its people. NOT to any individual. NOT to any agenda that places one man's ambition above the supreme law of the land. Rise, Zimbabwe. Rise and DEFEND YOUR CONSTITUTION. #NoTo2030 CAB3 is not reform. It is a legislative instrument designed to extend presidential tenure beyond what Section 91(2) of the Constitution permits. Section 328 prohibits exactly this no amendment shall advantage a sitting president on term limits.

Retired Lt General Winston Sigauke Mapuranga

72,993 Aufrufe • vor 2 Monaten

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

16,579 Aufrufe • vor 2 Monaten

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

62,229 Aufrufe • vor 4 Monaten

This is what fascism looks like I’m America. Trump’s judicial nominees refuse to say that Trump is ineligible to run for a third term, The 22nd Amendment, ratified in 1951, specifically says: “No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once.” There is no interpretation needed. These nominees should not be approved.

This is what fascism looks like I’m America. Trump’s judicial nominees refuse to say that Trump is ineligible to run for a third term, The 22nd Amendment, ratified in 1951, specifically says: “No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once.” There is no interpretation needed. These nominees should not be approved.

Ed Krassenstein

90,756 Aufrufe • vor 1 Monat

📌Closing all Doors for Chiwenga, LynneM 💕💝💎 and Cde Knox M Chivero could be right 🔸During the debate on the Constitution of Zimbabwe Amendment (No. 3) Bill (CAB3), the Minister of Justice, Hon. Ziyambi Ziyambi, explained that Clause 4 deletes Section 94(3) of the Constitution. That subsection used to require a Vice‑President who takes over as President after a vacancy to be sworn in with a new presidential oath. 🔸He pointed out that this requirement is no longer needed because Amendment No. 2 of 2021 already changed the rules: when the presidency becomes vacant, Parliament now elects a new President within 30 days. So the old oath requirement for a Vice‑President stepping up no longer applies. 🔸He stressed that removing this outdated provision simply brings the Constitution into line with the current law. Parliament has since passed the amendment. -—————————————————— ⭕️Key quotations from the Constitution and the amendment 1. The provision being repealed – Section 94(3) of the Constitution (still in force until Clause 4 of CAB3 takes effect): “A Vice‑President who becomes President on the death, resignation or removal from office of the President assumes office when he or she takes, before the Chief Justice or the next most senior judge available, the oath of President in the form set out in the Third Schedule, which oath he or she must take as soon as possible and in any event within forty‑eight hours after the office of President became vacant.” 2. The change made by Amendment No. 2 of 2021 – that Act removed the old system of elected Vice‑Presidents and introduced the current rules (including the 30‑day parliamentary election process for a new President). The amendment is cited as: “Constitution of Zimbabwe Amendment (No. 2) Act, 2021” (The specific provisions that established the new vacancy‑filling procedure are found in the amendments to sections 92, 94 and 95 of the Constitution.) 3. Hon. Ziyambi Ziyambi’s explanation (as summarised from his statement in Parliament): “Clause 4 repeals Section 94(3), which had required a Vice‑President assuming the Presidency after a vacancy to take the oath of office. This provision became redundant after Amendment No. 2 of 2021, which established that Parliament elects a new President within 30 days of a vacancy. The repeal ensures the Constitution reflects current law.” ——————————————————- 📌🃏In short: The old oath rule for a Vice‑President who becomes President is being scrapped because it’s been overtaken by the 2021 change that gives Parliament the power to elect a new President within 30 days. Clause 4 of CAB3 clears away that obsolete requirement.

📌Closing all Doors for Chiwenga, LynneM 💕💝💎 and Cde Knox M Chivero could be right 🔸During the debate on the Constitution of Zimbabwe Amendment (No. 3) Bill (CAB3), the Minister of Justice, Hon. Ziyambi Ziyambi, explained that Clause 4 deletes Section 94(3) of the Constitution. That subsection used to require a Vice‑President who takes over as President after a vacancy to be sworn in with a new presidential oath. 🔸He pointed out that this requirement is no longer needed because Amendment No. 2 of 2021 already changed the rules: when the presidency becomes vacant, Parliament now elects a new President within 30 days. So the old oath requirement for a Vice‑President stepping up no longer applies. 🔸He stressed that removing this outdated provision simply brings the Constitution into line with the current law. Parliament has since passed the amendment. -—————————————————— ⭕️Key quotations from the Constitution and the amendment 1. The provision being repealed – Section 94(3) of the Constitution (still in force until Clause 4 of CAB3 takes effect): “A Vice‑President who becomes President on the death, resignation or removal from office of the President assumes office when he or she takes, before the Chief Justice or the next most senior judge available, the oath of President in the form set out in the Third Schedule, which oath he or she must take as soon as possible and in any event within forty‑eight hours after the office of President became vacant.” 2. The change made by Amendment No. 2 of 2021 – that Act removed the old system of elected Vice‑Presidents and introduced the current rules (including the 30‑day parliamentary election process for a new President). The amendment is cited as: “Constitution of Zimbabwe Amendment (No. 2) Act, 2021” (The specific provisions that established the new vacancy‑filling procedure are found in the amendments to sections 92, 94 and 95 of the Constitution.) 3. Hon. Ziyambi Ziyambi’s explanation (as summarised from his statement in Parliament): “Clause 4 repeals Section 94(3), which had required a Vice‑President assuming the Presidency after a vacancy to take the oath of office. This provision became redundant after Amendment No. 2 of 2021, which established that Parliament elects a new President within 30 days of a vacancy. The repeal ensures the Constitution reflects current law.” ——————————————————- 📌🃏In short: The old oath rule for a Vice‑President who becomes President is being scrapped because it’s been overtaken by the 2021 change that gives Parliament the power to elect a new President within 30 days. Clause 4 of CAB3 clears away that obsolete requirement.

Chimbwa

92,820 Aufrufe • vor 1 Tag

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

87,763 Aufrufe • vor 2 Monaten

The Singaporean has been arrested after he being defrauded? Why is the NDC Regional Chairman Ashie Moore still free? I know this turn of event follows For The Records exposé on this issue Let’s revisit what the law says from the Political Party Act 2000 (Act 574) PART III-FUNDING OF POLITICAL PARTIES Section 23: Contribution by Citizens. Only a citizen may contribute in cash or in kind to the funds of a political party. A firm, partnership, or enterprise owned by a citizen or a company registered under the laws of the Republic at least seventy-five percent of whose capital is owned by a citizen is for the purposes of this Act a citizen. Section 24: No Contribution by Non-Citizens. A non-citizen shall not directly or indirectly make a contribution or donation or loan whether in cash or in kind to the funds held by or for the benefit of a political party and no political party or person acting for or on behalf of a political party shall demand or accept a contribution donation or loan from a non-citizen. Section 25: Contraventions of this Part. Where any person contravenes section 23 or 24, in addition to any penalty that may be imposed under this Act, any amount whether in cash or in kind paid in contravention of the section shall be forfeited to the State and the amount shall be recovered from the political party as debt owed to the State. The political party or person in whose custody the amount is for the time being held shall pay it to the State. A non-citizen found guilty of contravention of section 24 shall be deemed to be a prohibited immigrant and liable to deportation under the Aliens Act, 1963 (Act 160). The provisions of sections 23 and 24 do not preclude a goverment of any country or a nongovernmental organization from providing assistance in cash or in kind to the Commission for use by the Commission for the collective benefit of registered political parties. The law is clear on this and we expect the NDC Chairman to refund the money sponsored by Toh You Kang into their campaign to the state. Total Abuse of Power! Scam Aban!

The Singaporean has been arrested after he being defrauded? Why is the NDC Regional Chairman Ashie Moore still free? I know this turn of event follows For The Records exposé on this issue Let’s revisit what the law says from the Political Party Act 2000 (Act 574) PART III-FUNDING OF POLITICAL PARTIES Section 23: Contribution by Citizens. Only a citizen may contribute in cash or in kind to the funds of a political party. A firm, partnership, or enterprise owned by a citizen or a company registered under the laws of the Republic at least seventy-five percent of whose capital is owned by a citizen is for the purposes of this Act a citizen. Section 24: No Contribution by Non-Citizens. A non-citizen shall not directly or indirectly make a contribution or donation or loan whether in cash or in kind to the funds held by or for the benefit of a political party and no political party or person acting for or on behalf of a political party shall demand or accept a contribution donation or loan from a non-citizen. Section 25: Contraventions of this Part. Where any person contravenes section 23 or 24, in addition to any penalty that may be imposed under this Act, any amount whether in cash or in kind paid in contravention of the section shall be forfeited to the State and the amount shall be recovered from the political party as debt owed to the State. The political party or person in whose custody the amount is for the time being held shall pay it to the State. A non-citizen found guilty of contravention of section 24 shall be deemed to be a prohibited immigrant and liable to deportation under the Aliens Act, 1963 (Act 160). The provisions of sections 23 and 24 do not preclude a goverment of any country or a nongovernmental organization from providing assistance in cash or in kind to the Commission for use by the Commission for the collective benefit of registered political parties. The law is clear on this and we expect the NDC Chairman to refund the money sponsored by Toh You Kang into their campaign to the state. Total Abuse of Power! Scam Aban!

For The Records

58,823 Aufrufe • vor 11 Monaten

The Constitution includes a provision that disqualifies Donald Trump from holding public office again, says Former conservative federal judge Michael Luttig: "Under the professor's reading of Section 3 and of my reading...The former president is disqualified from holding the office of the presidency in 2024."

The Constitution includes a provision that disqualifies Donald Trump from holding public office again, says Former conservative federal judge Michael Luttig: "Under the professor's reading of Section 3 and of my reading...The former president is disqualified from holding the office of the presidency in 2024."

Republicans against Trump

899,165 Aufrufe • vor 2 Jahren

Finally, David Coltart Mayor of Bulawayo has been given an opportunity to speak, he says absolute power corrupts absolutely, there is no separation of power and this bill gives the president too much power in appointing judges,....and Chiefs cant be partisan. I was elected by 86% of the Bulawayo people but i must not serve more than my term, its a moral and honourable thing to do! The extension of the term limit contravenes section 328 as this calls for a referendum first. source CITE

Finally, David Coltart Mayor of Bulawayo has been given an opportunity to speak, he says absolute power corrupts absolutely, there is no separation of power and this bill gives the president too much power in appointing judges,....and Chiefs cant be partisan. I was elected by 86% of the Bulawayo people but i must not serve more than my term, its a moral and honourable thing to do! The extension of the term limit contravenes section 328 as this calls for a referendum first. source CITE

ZimNewsUpdates

53,268 Aufrufe • vor 3 Monaten

This is supposed to be an opposition Member of Parliament in Zimbabwe called Samantha Mureyani from Manicaland. This Member of Parliament spoke in Zimbabwe’s Parliament today. Despite being an opposition MP, she stated that she supports Constitutional Amendment Bill No. 3 sponsored by the ruling ZANUPF. She specifically spoke about her support for President Emmerson Mnangagwa remaining in office for an additional two years beyond the current constitutional term limit of 10 years. She also expressed support for the idea of extending presidential terms to seven years. This is the quality of some of the MPs sitting in Zimbabwe’s Parliament today. As I have said before, this is not just a Zimbabwean crisis or a Zimbabwean story. It is a regional story. When the political fallout from these developments begins to unfold and the economy deteriorates even further, it is countries such as South Africa and Botswana that will bear the brunt of increased migration pressures from Zimbabwe. That is what unfolded in Zimbabwe’s Parliament today. This MP was brought into Parliament by the charlatan-imposed opposition parliamentary leader, Sengezo Tshabangu, who captured the CCC party, taking advantage of the fact that it did not have a constitution or leadership structures. He falsely claimed to be the party’s Secretary-General, which he was not, and exploited the vacuum created by the absence of formal structures and leadership.

This is supposed to be an opposition Member of Parliament in Zimbabwe called Samantha Mureyani from Manicaland. This Member of Parliament spoke in Zimbabwe’s Parliament today. Despite being an opposition MP, she stated that she supports Constitutional Amendment Bill No. 3 sponsored by the ruling ZANUPF. She specifically spoke about her support for President Emmerson Mnangagwa remaining in office for an additional two years beyond the current constitutional term limit of 10 years. She also expressed support for the idea of extending presidential terms to seven years. This is the quality of some of the MPs sitting in Zimbabwe’s Parliament today. As I have said before, this is not just a Zimbabwean crisis or a Zimbabwean story. It is a regional story. When the political fallout from these developments begins to unfold and the economy deteriorates even further, it is countries such as South Africa and Botswana that will bear the brunt of increased migration pressures from Zimbabwe. That is what unfolded in Zimbabwe’s Parliament today. This MP was brought into Parliament by the charlatan-imposed opposition parliamentary leader, Sengezo Tshabangu, who captured the CCC party, taking advantage of the fact that it did not have a constitution or leadership structures. He falsely claimed to be the party’s Secretary-General, which he was not, and exploited the vacuum created by the absence of formal structures and leadership.

Hopewell Chin’ono

54,650 Aufrufe • vor 27 Tagen

Sooner or later, we'll be told that although the constitution has a two term limit , the people have spoken, and the voice of the people is the voice of God. #Asakhe

Sooner or later, we'll be told that although the constitution has a two term limit , the people have spoken, and the voice of the people is the voice of God. #Asakhe

Zenzele

66,819 Aufrufe • vor 1 Jahr

Why does MAGA always seem to think that the Constitution shouldn't apply to Trump? 22nd Amendment: "No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once." If you are a Trump supporter, would you want him to have a 3rd term?

Why does MAGA always seem to think that the Constitution shouldn't apply to Trump? 22nd Amendment: "No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once." If you are a Trump supporter, would you want him to have a 3rd term?

Ed Krassenstein

173,798 Aufrufe • vor 1 Jahr

This is HUGE ‼️ Woman who works with Section 8 is going over upcoming major changes. Starting with October 1, 2025 “there is a 2 year max time limit on this program for everyone that's able to work now” No more spending a lifetime on Section 8!! “There are major changes coming to Section 8 housing starting with October 1, 2025 that will affect millions of Americans — Instead of HUD running that voucher program national wide, they will send those funds to the state in the form of block grants which means that every state will decide how to spend those funds. But it's a smaller amount of funds so that means that fewer people will be able to get the assistance. One of the most controversial parts about this program is there is a 2 year max time limit on this program for everyone that's able to work now. There is a major contract to right now which the average family stays on this program for about six years even if they are able to work. A lot of the supporters of this build are pointing out that a lot of people are taking advantage of this program and sucking the resources that could be used for someone that actually needs them.”

This is HUGE ‼️ Woman who works with Section 8 is going over upcoming major changes. Starting with October 1, 2025 “there is a 2 year max time limit on this program for everyone that's able to work now” No more spending a lifetime on Section 8!! “There are major changes coming to Section 8 housing starting with October 1, 2025 that will affect millions of Americans — Instead of HUD running that voucher program national wide, they will send those funds to the state in the form of block grants which means that every state will decide how to spend those funds. But it's a smaller amount of funds so that means that fewer people will be able to get the assistance. One of the most controversial parts about this program is there is a 2 year max time limit on this program for everyone that's able to work now. There is a major contract to right now which the average family stays on this program for about six years even if they are able to work. A lot of the supporters of this build are pointing out that a lot of people are taking advantage of this program and sucking the resources that could be used for someone that actually needs them.”

Wall Street Apes

998,362 Aufrufe • vor 10 Monaten

"It's gonna be up to us on January 6, 2025 to tell the rampaging Trump mobs that he's disqualified." Rep Jamie Raskin Well, Raskin needs to refresh on the law. The 14th Amendment Section 3 doesn’t apply to the President (Trump). If you read Section 3 of the 14th Amendment nowhere does it mention that one cannot be President. ▫️Legal Interpretation: The presidency is not considered an “officer of the United States” under the amendment. Officers are appointed, the President is appointed elected. Therefore the 14th Amendment wouldn’t apply to the President as they’re not an Officer of the United States. ▫️Debate Topic: Whether January 6th qualifies as an “insurrection” and whether Trump’s actions meet the amendment’s requirements. ▫️Supreme Court Ruling: This section of the amendment does not apply to the presidency. This interpretation upholds Trump’s eligibility for office, ensuring his eventual ascension to the presidency as the 47th President of the United States. 🔗🔗with more information in comments 👇🏻

"It's gonna be up to us on January 6, 2025 to tell the rampaging Trump mobs that he's disqualified." Rep Jamie Raskin Well, Raskin needs to refresh on the law. The 14th Amendment Section 3 doesn’t apply to the President (Trump). If you read Section 3 of the 14th Amendment nowhere does it mention that one cannot be President. ▫️Legal Interpretation: The presidency is not considered an “officer of the United States” under the amendment. Officers are appointed, the President is appointed elected. Therefore the 14th Amendment wouldn’t apply to the President as they’re not an Officer of the United States. ▫️Debate Topic: Whether January 6th qualifies as an “insurrection” and whether Trump’s actions meet the amendment’s requirements. ▫️Supreme Court Ruling: This section of the amendment does not apply to the presidency. This interpretation upholds Trump’s eligibility for office, ensuring his eventual ascension to the presidency as the 47th President of the United States. 🔗🔗with more information in comments 👇🏻

❥❥❥ᗰoᒪᒪie❥❥❥

66,537 Aufrufe • vor 1 Jahr

FORMER PRESIDENT THABO MBEKI ON TERM-LIMITS IN AFRICA: “The ANC constitution doesn't have term limits. Indeed, maybe I should go beyond that. You see we shouldn't transform issues that are really of kind of tactical, of a tactical nature, into strategic issues. The United Kingdom does not have a process of term limitations, in terms of government, it doesn't have. Neither that Sweden have, The Netherlands…many. Who says they are not democratic? You know the issue of term limits on the Continent here—again I'm coming back to our understanding, our objective reality—it arose because you had a long period of military coups and military governments and all of that. And in the process of the democratisation, the general feeling on the continent was that let's find a way of avoiding these people who perpetuate themselves in government forever. And therefore let's do time limits. It was as a reaction to what had been happening. Now the fact that the United Kingdom does not have term limits, does not make it any less democratic. Stan Rylander, I see here from Sweden. The Swedes don't have term limits. Doesn't make Sweden less democratic. If African countries decide not to have term limits, why would they be less democratic? So, I'm saying that this was the tactical response to a particular history. And now we want to turn this into a principle like it comes from the Bible or the Quran or something” Comment: It is dangerous to turn a tactical decision to introduce a directly elected Executive President in 1987—in anticipation of the failed agenda for a legislated one party one-man rule state—into a principle of “one man one vote” or universal adult suffrage like it came from the Bible or the Quran or something. Learn to distinguish between tactics and strategy or expediency and principle. Meanwhile, CAB3 does not amend any term limit provision!

FORMER PRESIDENT THABO MBEKI ON TERM-LIMITS IN AFRICA: “The ANC constitution doesn't have term limits. Indeed, maybe I should go beyond that. You see we shouldn't transform issues that are really of kind of tactical, of a tactical nature, into strategic issues. The United Kingdom does not have a process of term limitations, in terms of government, it doesn't have. Neither that Sweden have, The Netherlands…many. Who says they are not democratic? You know the issue of term limits on the Continent here—again I'm coming back to our understanding, our objective reality—it arose because you had a long period of military coups and military governments and all of that. And in the process of the democratisation, the general feeling on the continent was that let's find a way of avoiding these people who perpetuate themselves in government forever. And therefore let's do time limits. It was as a reaction to what had been happening. Now the fact that the United Kingdom does not have term limits, does not make it any less democratic. Stan Rylander, I see here from Sweden. The Swedes don't have term limits. Doesn't make Sweden less democratic. If African countries decide not to have term limits, why would they be less democratic? So, I'm saying that this was the tactical response to a particular history. And now we want to turn this into a principle like it comes from the Bible or the Quran or something” Comment: It is dangerous to turn a tactical decision to introduce a directly elected Executive President in 1987—in anticipation of the failed agenda for a legislated one party one-man rule state—into a principle of “one man one vote” or universal adult suffrage like it came from the Bible or the Quran or something. Learn to distinguish between tactics and strategy or expediency and principle. Meanwhile, CAB3 does not amend any term limit provision!

Prof Jonathan Moyo

39,838 Aufrufe • vor 3 Monaten

Within the next month or so, I'm planning to make the first section of this course: free on YouTube. It'll help with future YouTube tutorials to give some baseline to point people to so I can cover more interesting stuff without rehashing the basics each time. Reason I'm mentioning this is because if anyone is planning to buy the course primarily for the first section (roughly one third of the full course) and you're willing to wait a little, you don't need to buy it. And I don't want people annoyed that they bought it then the main section they were interested in gets released free. There's more to the course, with a lot of info in the rest, but the first part is probably the most valuable in terms of learning procedural movement animation. If you can't wait or want the rest, the above link is the lowest discount possible (for 5 day time limit). Attached are some clips/examples I've made using the system we set up in the first section of the course.

Within the next month or so, I'm planning to make the first section of this course: free on YouTube. It'll help with future YouTube tutorials to give some baseline to point people to so I can cover more interesting stuff without rehashing the basics each time. Reason I'm mentioning this is because if anyone is planning to buy the course primarily for the first section (roughly one third of the full course) and you're willing to wait a little, you don't need to buy it. And I don't want people annoyed that they bought it then the main section they were interested in gets released free. There's more to the course, with a lot of info in the rest, but the first part is probably the most valuable in terms of learning procedural movement animation. If you can't wait or want the rest, the above link is the lowest discount possible (for 5 day time limit). Attached are some clips/examples I've made using the system we set up in the first section of the course.

Lincoln Margison - Game Development

19,193 Aufrufe • vor 10 Monaten

President William Ruto dismisses claims of a one-term presidency: “Sometimes you are threatened with talk of a one-term presidency, two-term but that is not my concern. Will the 2027 election be any different from the ones we have held before? What is the problem?” “I was an MP for 15 years, Deputy President for 10 years, and now I am serving as President for almost five years now. What is it that I have not become? What can someone threaten me with?”

President William Ruto dismisses claims of a one-term presidency: “Sometimes you are threatened with talk of a one-term presidency, two-term but that is not my concern. Will the 2027 election be any different from the ones we have held before? What is the problem?” “I was an MP for 15 years, Deputy President for 10 years, and now I am serving as President for almost five years now. What is it that I have not become? What can someone threaten me with?”

Cyprian, Is Nyakundi

76,366 Aufrufe • vor 1 Jahr

One of the 13 Australians involved in child abuse and sex trafficking in the Philippines is a 69 year old Darwin man. The AFP has released footage of his arrest. "On 10 December, 2025, the NT man pleaded guilty to the following charges: Three counts of sexual intercourse with a child outside Australia, contrary to section 272.8(2) of the Criminal Code (Cth). The maximum penalty for this offence is 30 years’ imprisonment; and Sexual activity with a child outside Australia, contrary to section 272.9(2) of the Criminal Code (Cth). The maximum penalty for this offence is 20 years’ imprisonment;"

One of the 13 Australians involved in child abuse and sex trafficking in the Philippines is a 69 year old Darwin man. The AFP has released footage of his arrest. "On 10 December, 2025, the NT man pleaded guilty to the following charges: Three counts of sexual intercourse with a child outside Australia, contrary to section 272.8(2) of the Criminal Code (Cth). The maximum penalty for this offence is 30 years’ imprisonment; and Sexual activity with a child outside Australia, contrary to section 272.9(2) of the Criminal Code (Cth). The maximum penalty for this offence is 20 years’ imprisonment;"

Rukshan Fernando

27,500 Aufrufe • vor 6 Monaten

One of the pillars of my campaign is term limits. I’ve already term-limited myself in the House. And in the United States Senate, I will serve no more than 12 years. Period. John Cornyn has already spent twice that in Washington. Now he’s asking for six more years. That’s NOT service. Public office is not a retirement plan. It’s not a lifetime appointment. It’s a calling, and it comes with an expiration date. On March 3, Texans have a choice. You can protect the system. Or you can take a sledgehammer to it. Vote for a NEW generation of leadership … one that answers to you, NOT to Washington. The time is NOW.

One of the pillars of my campaign is term limits. I’ve already term-limited myself in the House. And in the United States Senate, I will serve no more than 12 years. Period. John Cornyn has already spent twice that in Washington. Now he’s asking for six more years. That’s NOT service. Public office is not a retirement plan. It’s not a lifetime appointment. It’s a calling, and it comes with an expiration date. On March 3, Texans have a choice. You can protect the system. Or you can take a sledgehammer to it. Vote for a NEW generation of leadership … one that answers to you, NOT to Washington. The time is NOW.

Wesley Hunt

44,820 Aufrufe • vor 4 Monaten

When legal scholar Dr Justice Mavedzenge retorted, during his constitutional debate with political scientist Prof Jonathan Moyo, that Zimbabwe’s Justice Minister, Ziyambi Ziyambi, has never practised law, what is in the attached Herald article is what he was referring to. A Justice Minister devoid of the ability to understand the Constitution he is supposed to guard and uphold. Zimbabwe’s Justice Minister, Ziyambi Ziyambi, has gone ahistorical, insulting Zimbabweans, including the country’s freedom fighters, by claiming that the liberation war was not about one man, one vote, but merely about land restoration rights. Such a claim distorts the historical record and reduces a broad liberation struggle for political rights and majority rule to a single issue. He advances this intellectual propaganda drivel to defend taking away the direct vote to elect a president from citizens, as espoused in his Constitutional Amendment Bill No. 3. It shows that he has never read liberation war literature, which consistently emphasised one man one vote as a central pillar of the liberation struggle. Zimbabweans did not go to war merely for land in isolation, they went to war for majority rule, for universal adult suffrage, for one man, one vote. That principle was entrenched in liberation literature, which articulated the clarion call for equal voting rights to justify the struggle that eventually ended minority. Land without political power would have been meaningless. The liberation struggle was about giving black Zimbabweans the authority to choose who governs them, and through that democratic power to determine land policy and every other national question. For the avoidance of doubt, I attach a video below of Robert Mugabe explicitly stating that the liberation struggle was about one man, one vote. This was in 1962. Ziyambia also argues, ridiculously, that you do not need a referendum to extend President Emmerson Mnangagwa’s tenure of office. Ziyambi confirms Mavedzenge’s assertion that he has never practised law, because one cannot separate the length of an election cycle from Presidential term limits as if they exist in different constitutional universes. They are inseparable, and only a bush lawyer would argue otherwise. The moment you extend an election cycle from five to seven years, you are automatically extending the tenure of the sitting President. This is first-year law degree material, and any serious student of constitutional law would understand that altering the duration of a term inevitably affects the term limit framework itself. That is not a neutral administrative adjustment, it is a substantive alteration to how long executive power is held. Section 91(2) of Zimbabwe’s constitution does not operate in a vacuum. It defines how many terms a President may serve, but the Constitution also defines how long each term is. If you stretch the duration of a term, you are materially affecting the term limit framework. You are extending the time a President holds office beyond what voters originally authorised under the existing constitutional order when they cast their vote. This is precisely why Section 328 was crafted with safeguards. It was meant to prevent incumbents from manipulating constitutional provisions, directly or indirectly, to prolong their stay in power. Whether you change the number of terms or the length of each term, the democratic effect is identical, you extend Presidential tenure. How a Minister of Justice fails to grasp that is astonishing. To argue that extending an election cycle does not touch term limits is like arguing that increasing the length of a school year does not affect how long pupils stay in school. It is a distinction without a difference. The 2007 harmonisation argument, which Ziyambi uses in a feeble attempt to defend an illegal constitutional mutilation, is also wildly misplaced. The 2007 adjustment aligned electoral calendars within an already existing constitutional framework. It did not extend the tenure of an incumbent President beyond the mandate voters had already given. There is a qualitative constitutional difference between administrative alignment and tenure extension. It is plain common sense, even before one applies constitutional law analysis. The claim that Ziyambi makes that even extending term limits to three terms would not require a referendum is equally alarming and legally outrageous. Section 328 was specifically designed to stop incumbency advantage and self-serving amendments. Any change that affects how long a President can remain in office, whether by number of terms or by their duration, triggers constitutional safeguards, including a referendum, especially where it benefits a sitting office holder like in this instance. Ziyambi’s attempt to anchor this in the so-called Vision 2030 or Covid-19 disruptions is empty political rhetoric, not constitutional law. Development agendas do not override constitutional protections. If anything, constitutionalism exists precisely to restrain power during moments when governments claim necessity to do so. The whole world knows that this minister, and other deeply corrupt and politically opportunistic elements working with him attempting to push these amendments illegally, are relying on a captured judiciary to pronounce on these issues through the same ridiculous lenses they are using to wrongly interpret the Constitution. That may well happen, but it renders the entire exercise illegitimate and unlawful, and it will ultimately be reversed, if they are able to force it through and attempt to implement it. The whole world is watching, and this may well become someone’s Waterloo if they are not careful. Also, for the avoidance of doubt, I place below a video of former ZANUPF Legal Secretary Patrick Chinamasa explicitly stating that the proposed changes require two referendums. He said this in front of President Emmerson Mnangagwa at a ZANUPF Annual Conference, and there was no objection to what he said. He was speaking in his capacity as ZANUPF Legal Secretary. ZANUPF and its leadership continue to be a laughing stock as they try to navigate a factional fight by attempting to strip and mutilate the Constitution to resolve internal power struggles. Unfortunately, it is not only ZANUPF that is becoming a laughing stock. Our country itself is becoming one, as the rest of the continent and the world watch a Justice Minister and a group of leaders publicly contradict their own Constitution. This simply exposes the depth of incompetence. Even where the intention is manipulative and corrupt, dictators elsewhere attempt such manoeuvres with a degree of legal sophistication. But here, we are being led by a regime full of people who do not even understand the Constitution upon which their authority is supposed to rest. They do not grasp the implications of what they are attempting to do. What serious investor would commit capital to a country where the judiciary pronounces itself in ways that are contrary to the Constitution, the supreme law of the land? It is absolutely ridiculous. We have people who are supposed to be educated publicly ridiculing themselves by articulating positions that are plainly inconsistent with the Constitution, yet insisting that this is what the Constitution provides. It is astonishing to witness how money and power can erode individuals to the point where they are prepared to destroy anything associated with their professional standing, whether intellectually, as scholars, or as lawyers. It is deeply embarrassing to watch this kind of constitutional drama unfolding in 2026. Imagine the level of shamelessness required for the Justice Minister of a republic born out of a war of independence to come out and claim that the republic was born out of a fight that had nothing to do with one man, one vote, that it was merely about land. In other words, he is suggesting that Zimbabweans who do not have land are not yet independent? Is he also implying that those of us without land are not independent? What, then, was the struggle for if it was only about land, which many citizens still do not possess? It would mean that only those who received land are the ones enjoying independence. He does not seem to realise the Pandora’s box he is opening with such shameless and anti-intellectual statements as Justice Minister of a country whose independence came through a protracted liberation struggle in which blood was spilled and thousands of Zimbabweans were killed fighting for one man, one vote. That position was articulated repeatedly, and it exists on record and on video. Now, in an attempt to resolve a factional fight, ZANUPF appears willing to walk back the very historical foundations of the liberation struggle. I never imagined I would live to see the day when a ZANUPF minister would shame not only himself, his party, and his President, but also embarrass the broader Pan-African community by claiming that Zimbabwe’s independence struggle had nothing to do with one man, one vote. By that logic, if Ian Smith had simply given Africans access to land, the war would have ended there. That is the dangerous and ignominious implication of what this minister is now advancing.

When legal scholar Dr Justice Mavedzenge retorted, during his constitutional debate with political scientist Prof Jonathan Moyo, that Zimbabwe’s Justice Minister, Ziyambi Ziyambi, has never practised law, what is in the attached Herald article is what he was referring to. A Justice Minister devoid of the ability to understand the Constitution he is supposed to guard and uphold. Zimbabwe’s Justice Minister, Ziyambi Ziyambi, has gone ahistorical, insulting Zimbabweans, including the country’s freedom fighters, by claiming that the liberation war was not about one man, one vote, but merely about land restoration rights. Such a claim distorts the historical record and reduces a broad liberation struggle for political rights and majority rule to a single issue. He advances this intellectual propaganda drivel to defend taking away the direct vote to elect a president from citizens, as espoused in his Constitutional Amendment Bill No. 3. It shows that he has never read liberation war literature, which consistently emphasised one man one vote as a central pillar of the liberation struggle. Zimbabweans did not go to war merely for land in isolation, they went to war for majority rule, for universal adult suffrage, for one man, one vote. That principle was entrenched in liberation literature, which articulated the clarion call for equal voting rights to justify the struggle that eventually ended minority. Land without political power would have been meaningless. The liberation struggle was about giving black Zimbabweans the authority to choose who governs them, and through that democratic power to determine land policy and every other national question. For the avoidance of doubt, I attach a video below of Robert Mugabe explicitly stating that the liberation struggle was about one man, one vote. This was in 1962. Ziyambia also argues, ridiculously, that you do not need a referendum to extend President Emmerson Mnangagwa’s tenure of office. Ziyambi confirms Mavedzenge’s assertion that he has never practised law, because one cannot separate the length of an election cycle from Presidential term limits as if they exist in different constitutional universes. They are inseparable, and only a bush lawyer would argue otherwise. The moment you extend an election cycle from five to seven years, you are automatically extending the tenure of the sitting President. This is first-year law degree material, and any serious student of constitutional law would understand that altering the duration of a term inevitably affects the term limit framework itself. That is not a neutral administrative adjustment, it is a substantive alteration to how long executive power is held. Section 91(2) of Zimbabwe’s constitution does not operate in a vacuum. It defines how many terms a President may serve, but the Constitution also defines how long each term is. If you stretch the duration of a term, you are materially affecting the term limit framework. You are extending the time a President holds office beyond what voters originally authorised under the existing constitutional order when they cast their vote. This is precisely why Section 328 was crafted with safeguards. It was meant to prevent incumbents from manipulating constitutional provisions, directly or indirectly, to prolong their stay in power. Whether you change the number of terms or the length of each term, the democratic effect is identical, you extend Presidential tenure. How a Minister of Justice fails to grasp that is astonishing. To argue that extending an election cycle does not touch term limits is like arguing that increasing the length of a school year does not affect how long pupils stay in school. It is a distinction without a difference. The 2007 harmonisation argument, which Ziyambi uses in a feeble attempt to defend an illegal constitutional mutilation, is also wildly misplaced. The 2007 adjustment aligned electoral calendars within an already existing constitutional framework. It did not extend the tenure of an incumbent President beyond the mandate voters had already given. There is a qualitative constitutional difference between administrative alignment and tenure extension. It is plain common sense, even before one applies constitutional law analysis. The claim that Ziyambi makes that even extending term limits to three terms would not require a referendum is equally alarming and legally outrageous. Section 328 was specifically designed to stop incumbency advantage and self-serving amendments. Any change that affects how long a President can remain in office, whether by number of terms or by their duration, triggers constitutional safeguards, including a referendum, especially where it benefits a sitting office holder like in this instance. Ziyambi’s attempt to anchor this in the so-called Vision 2030 or Covid-19 disruptions is empty political rhetoric, not constitutional law. Development agendas do not override constitutional protections. If anything, constitutionalism exists precisely to restrain power during moments when governments claim necessity to do so. The whole world knows that this minister, and other deeply corrupt and politically opportunistic elements working with him attempting to push these amendments illegally, are relying on a captured judiciary to pronounce on these issues through the same ridiculous lenses they are using to wrongly interpret the Constitution. That may well happen, but it renders the entire exercise illegitimate and unlawful, and it will ultimately be reversed, if they are able to force it through and attempt to implement it. The whole world is watching, and this may well become someone’s Waterloo if they are not careful. Also, for the avoidance of doubt, I place below a video of former ZANUPF Legal Secretary Patrick Chinamasa explicitly stating that the proposed changes require two referendums. He said this in front of President Emmerson Mnangagwa at a ZANUPF Annual Conference, and there was no objection to what he said. He was speaking in his capacity as ZANUPF Legal Secretary. ZANUPF and its leadership continue to be a laughing stock as they try to navigate a factional fight by attempting to strip and mutilate the Constitution to resolve internal power struggles. Unfortunately, it is not only ZANUPF that is becoming a laughing stock. Our country itself is becoming one, as the rest of the continent and the world watch a Justice Minister and a group of leaders publicly contradict their own Constitution. This simply exposes the depth of incompetence. Even where the intention is manipulative and corrupt, dictators elsewhere attempt such manoeuvres with a degree of legal sophistication. But here, we are being led by a regime full of people who do not even understand the Constitution upon which their authority is supposed to rest. They do not grasp the implications of what they are attempting to do. What serious investor would commit capital to a country where the judiciary pronounces itself in ways that are contrary to the Constitution, the supreme law of the land? It is absolutely ridiculous. We have people who are supposed to be educated publicly ridiculing themselves by articulating positions that are plainly inconsistent with the Constitution, yet insisting that this is what the Constitution provides. It is astonishing to witness how money and power can erode individuals to the point where they are prepared to destroy anything associated with their professional standing, whether intellectually, as scholars, or as lawyers. It is deeply embarrassing to watch this kind of constitutional drama unfolding in 2026. Imagine the level of shamelessness required for the Justice Minister of a republic born out of a war of independence to come out and claim that the republic was born out of a fight that had nothing to do with one man, one vote, that it was merely about land. In other words, he is suggesting that Zimbabweans who do not have land are not yet independent? Is he also implying that those of us without land are not independent? What, then, was the struggle for if it was only about land, which many citizens still do not possess? It would mean that only those who received land are the ones enjoying independence. He does not seem to realise the Pandora’s box he is opening with such shameless and anti-intellectual statements as Justice Minister of a country whose independence came through a protracted liberation struggle in which blood was spilled and thousands of Zimbabweans were killed fighting for one man, one vote. That position was articulated repeatedly, and it exists on record and on video. Now, in an attempt to resolve a factional fight, ZANUPF appears willing to walk back the very historical foundations of the liberation struggle. I never imagined I would live to see the day when a ZANUPF minister would shame not only himself, his party, and his President, but also embarrass the broader Pan-African community by claiming that Zimbabwe’s independence struggle had nothing to do with one man, one vote. By that logic, if Ian Smith had simply given Africans access to land, the war would have ended there. That is the dangerous and ignominious implication of what this minister is now advancing.

Hopewell Chin’ono

54,195 Aufrufe • vor 4 Monaten