Video yükleniyor...

Video Yüklenemedi

Ana Sayfaya Dön

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...

45,815 görüntüleme • 20 gün önce •via X (Twitter)

0 Yorum

Yorum bulunmuyor

Orijinal gönderinin yorumları burada görünecek

Benzer Videolar

Two cases which were brought before the Constitutional Court of Zimbabwe challenging Constitutional Amendment Bill No. 3 (CAB 3) have been struck off, NOT dismissed. CAB 3, which seeks, among other things, to extend President Emmerson Mnangagwa’s term of office and change the method of electing a president from direct election by citizens to election by Parliament, requires two referendums in law, but the ZANUPF faction sponsoring it wants to avoid a referendum. The Constitutional Court struck both cases off the roll this morning. It is important to understand that the cases were not dismissed on their merits. Rather, the Court held that the issues raised could not originate and be determined solely by the Constitutional Court and should first be ventilated in another forum, High Court. Professor Lovemore Maduku, who is arguing the cases, has indicated that they will now proceed to the High Court. Should the applicants fail to obtain the relief they seek there, the matters will inevitably return to the Constitutional Court on appeal. Many lawyers have described the Constitutional Court’s decision as an example of constitutional avoidance. In their view, the Court has declined to confront what has become a highly contentious constitutional question, preferring instead to defer consideration of the substantive issues. A central argument in the war veterans’ challenge, led by Professor Madhuku, is that Constitutional Amendment Bill No. 3 was discussed and approved by Cabinet, which included President Mnangagwa, the two Vice Presidents, and Cabinet ministers. Professor Madhuku argues that because President Mnangagwa stands to benefit directly from provisions extending his term of office, he should not have participated in deliberations on the amendments. According to the argument, the Constitution prohibits public officials from participating in decisions in which they have a direct personal interest. However, the Constitutional Court did not determine the merits of that argument, ruling instead that the matter should be heard elsewhere first. The legal battle is therefore far from over. It now moves to the High Court and, whatever the outcome there, is likely to find its way back to the Constitutional Court for a final determination.

Hopewell Chin’ono

28,681 görüntüleme • 5 gün önce

🚨 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 görüntüleme • 4 ay önce

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

54,538 görüntüleme • 18 gün önce

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 görüntüleme • 16 gün önce

Zimbabwe has never been led by politics; it has always been led by the gun from the rear. In fact, the Zimbabwe African National Union (ZANU) has always been led by the gun — only the Zimbabwe African People’s Union (ZAPU) was led by politics. The first leader of ZANU was Ndabaningi Sithole. He was removed by the Mgagao Declaration, which was signed by the military wing of ZANU, the Zimbabwe African National Liberation Army (ZANLA). The chairman of ZANU and its external leader was Herbert Chitepo. He was also killed by ZANLA in Zambia according to an international commission of inquiry set up by Zambian president, Dr Kenneth Kaunda. The next leader of ZANU was Robert Mugabe. He was installed by the military, although Samora Machel the president of Mozambique had advised them against the idea. Machel was proved right in the fullness of time, but it was the military that endorsed Mugabe through Rex Nhongo who became known as Solomon Mujuru. The Lancaster House talks in Britain were almost stalled by Mugabe’s intransigence, but it was General Josiah Tongogara, with the help of Samora Machel, who forced Mugabe to sign — after Machel sent his special aide, Fernando Honwana, to tell Mugabe to sign or come back to Maputo and write his memoirs on the beach. Throughout the 1980s and 1990s, it was the military, through its commanders, that influenced politics. In fact, any time Mugabe felt threatened, it was the military that sorted out party problems. General Solomon Mujuru was nicknamed the Kingmaker because of that, he was a powerful behind-the-scenes Politburo influencer when he was the overall commander of the army. Post-2000, it was the military that kept ZANUPF in power and actually ran its elections in tandem with the CIO. It was General Vitalis Zvinavashe who threatened citizens saying the military won’t accept a Morgan Tsvangirai victory. Though not a visible Politburo member in the 1980s, he was deeply embedded in both party and military affairs. General Constantino Chiwenga was effectively a military commissar for ZANUPF, executing the first bloodless coup in 2008 when the military stopped Morgan Tsvangirai from taking over after defeating Robert Mugabe. He was heavily involved in the 2013 elections with Air Marshal Muchena and eventually carried out a military coup that put Mnangagwa and the current regime in power. When the new crop of so called technocrats was appointed by Mugabe in 2000, it was General Chiwenga who was involved and when they hit a brick wall, they would return to him. The first time the military refused to be involved in politics — which is the real first aberration — was two weeks ago, when General Anselem Nhamo Sanyatwe refused to deploy soldiers against civilians and was fired for that. The ZANUPF spokesman Christopher Mutsvangwa called it disloyalty. If President Emmerson Mnangagwa manages to fire General Chiwenga tomorrow, as rumours suggest, without any blowback or deadly consequences, he would become the first ZANUPF leader to lead the gun — and not be removed by the military. So I disagree with the notion by my brother, Prof Jonathan Moyo, that the 2017 coup was an aberration. It wasn’t — it was the norm. What was an aberration was the amount of violence against the CIO and police officers who tried to resist. What has kept Emmerson Mnangagwa in power after his power struggle with his Vice President is his clansman, General Philip Valerio Sibanda who is the Commander of the Zimbabwe Defence Forces. He is opposed to General Chiwenga taking over as president and has been a stumbling block for the Vice President. Mnangagwa has been strategic by removing the former ZANLA army commanders from the top of the military because they are loyal to Chiwenga, who was in ZANLA, and replacing them with ex-Zimbabwe People’s Revolutionary Army (ZIPRA) commanders. General Sibanda and the Commander of the Army, General Emmanuel Matatu, are both ex-ZIPRA, and they are all from the Midlands, like Mnangagwa.

Hopewell Chin’ono

133,804 görüntüleme • 1 yıl önce

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 görüntüleme • 4 ay önce

A lot of international journalists across the continent and beyond have been asking me whether the opposition in Zimbabwe would vote in support of Constitutional Amendment Bill No. 3 when it comes to Parliament. For those who have been asking that question, and for others who had the same question in mind, this video is your answer. This is an opposition Member of Parliament speaking, praising President Mnangagwa and supporting his political agenda. Susan Matsunga was elected in 2023 to represent Budiriro North (Mufakose). She does not belong to the group of opposition Members of Parliament that were imposed by Sengezo Tshabangu, the charlatan who worked with others to disrupt Parliament and effectively hand ZANUPF a two-thirds majority. She belongs to the Nelson Chamisa group, the group that came through Bereka Mwana. When we criticised Bereka Mwana at the time, we were insulted. I remember explaining that Bereka Mwana was bringing in people who were bootlicking the leader of the party but did not necessarily have the substance and gravitas required to become Members of Parliament or oppose bad governance. So the more you bootlick the leader, the better your chances of getting into Parliament. She is a clear example of that. She was as militant as they come in defending the leader when he was making his festival of mistakes, and here you have her now supporting President Mnangagwa and his agenda. The problem that we have in Africa, particularly in Zimbabwe, is that people follow personalities. They do not follow ideas. When an empty vessel is a personality they like, they are happy to sink with that empty vessel. If someone comes with ideas but they do not like that person, they would rather discard the good ideas than support them. I want to make this prediction, and you can hold me to it. If it does not come to fruition, I will be very happy. ZANUPF is assured of power for at least the next 18 years. Until Zimbabweans change their attitude of supporting personalities over ideas, ZANUPF will remain in power for the next 18 years. We do not know what will happen after that, but for now, that is the trajectory. Some of you will ask why I say 18 years. It is because we are in 2026, and if ZANUPF gets Constitutional Amendment Bill No. 3 passed, it means the current president will remain in power for the next four years until 2030. The president who comes after him will then have two seven-year terms, that is 14 years. Add the four years from Mnangagwa, and that gives you 18 years. We do not know what will happen after that. Even if Mnangagwa is removed, for example through a coup, it will still be ZANUPF that remains in power. Until Zimbabweans understand that the enemy is not the person they do not like but who comes with good ideas, and that they must support ideas over personalities, ZANUPF will remain in power. Until Zimbabweans understand that politics is not like football, where you die on the hill of the team that you support, ZANUPF will remain in power. Until Zimbabweans understand the importance of working together, regardless of whether they like each other, as seen in the idea of a team of rivals associated with Abraham Lincoln, ZANUPF will remain in power. Until those who tell the truth are listened to, ZANUPF will remain in power. As long as people applaud and ululate those who tell them what they want to hear instead of what they need to hear, ZANUPF will remain in power. I want to leave you with this food for thought. In 2000, when Robert Mugabe and ZANUPF were pushing for a new constitution, the then opposition leader stood firm, campaigned across the country, and slept in people’s homes, in huts, mobilising against that constitution. It went to a referendum, and Robert Mugabe and ZANUPF lost. The opposition leader and his team managed to convince Zimbabweans, and they won. That moment showed what leadership, conviction, and grassroots mobilisation can achieve when people are organised around an idea. Today, I do not know who you can point to as the main opposition leader capable of doing the same, and that in itself is something Zimbabweans must seriously reflect on.

Hopewell Chin’ono

49,031 görüntüleme • 2 ay önce

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 görüntüleme • 2 ay önce