Video yükleniyor...

Video Yüklenemedi

Bu video yüklenirken bir sorun oluştu. Bu geçici bir ağ sorunundan kaynaklanıyor olabilir veya video kullanılamıyor olabilir.

Ana Sayfaya Dön

🔸Update: Running battles continue between the police and protesters on the streets. Zimbabwe was brought to a standstill today when, through a national shutdown, citizens protested the attempt by Zanu PF to extend Mr Mnangagwa’s term of office in breach of the two-term limit imposed by the Constitution, which... show more

Fadzayi Mahere🇿🇼

876,055 subscribers

85,089 görüntüleme • 1 yıl önce •via X (Twitter)

Sağlık & İyilik Eğitim Haberler & Politika

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

11 Yorum

Friendly_Fire🇿🇼 profil fotoğrafı

Friendly_Fire🇿🇼1 yıl önce

Thank you Fadzi for the update , hope Nero os following maybe he will learn one or two things about effective leadership

The Daily Muck profil fotoğrafı

The Daily Muck1 yıl önce

DC Councilmember Trayon White Sr. arrested for accepting $156,000 in bribes to influence city contracts. Accused of using his position to push for contract renewals worth millions, White faces up to 15 years in prison if convicted.

gudoreblack profil fotoğrafı

gudoreblack1 yıl önce

Kowewe unongowawata pinda mustreet kaa

Friendly_Fire🇿🇼 profil fotoğrafı

Friendly_Fire🇿🇼1 yıl önce

we need new leaders in opposition

FIBER_BEATZ profil fotoğrafı

FIBER_BEATZ1 yıl önce

We need new leaders

C-Y-B-O-R-G profil fotoğrafı

C-Y-B-O-R-G1 yıl önce

Well done team riri paground

international orphan profil fotoğrafı

international orphan1 yıl önce

I don't see masses in this video. As for standstill, you are lying.

Norman Chibhabha profil fotoğrafı

Norman Chibhabha1 yıl önce

Nero should just focus on Zuva for now..chupeti yake

Seb profil fotoğrafı

Seb1 yıl önce

Where were you? I guess leading from your comfortable home Xing! We need better opposition leaders!

Percy Hanyani profil fotoğrafı

Percy Hanyani1 yıl önce

Salute to everyone who managed to go n protest

international orphan profil fotoğrafı

international orphan1 yıl önce

Zimbabwe was certainly not on standstill. Harare failed kuzoti dzimwe nzvimbo

Benzer Videolar

🔸Zimbabwe experienced a national shutdown today in protest against the attempt by Zanu PF to extend Mr Mnangagwa’s term of office. The extension would violate the Constitution which imposes a two term limit on the presidency that expires in 2028. Protesters against the 2030 Agenda were the only sign of life on the streets. Even the infamous vendors 4ED and other ordinarily pro-establishment entities downed their tools. The public has made its sentiments known. There is near unanimous opposition to the attempt to breach or amend the Constitution to create another Mugabe-type dynasty - particularly in the face of extreme poverty, chronic corruption and the incessant shrinking of freedoms.l which have been the hallmark of this administration. We need new leaders.🇿🇼

🔸Zimbabwe experienced a national shutdown today in protest against the attempt by Zanu PF to extend Mr Mnangagwa’s term of office. The extension would violate the Constitution which imposes a two term limit on the presidency that expires in 2028. Protesters against the 2030 Agenda were the only sign of life on the streets. Even the infamous vendors 4ED and other ordinarily pro-establishment entities downed their tools. The public has made its sentiments known. There is near unanimous opposition to the attempt to breach or amend the Constitution to create another Mugabe-type dynasty - particularly in the face of extreme poverty, chronic corruption and the incessant shrinking of freedoms.l which have been the hallmark of this administration. We need new leaders.🇿🇼

Fadzayi Mahere🇿🇼

66,299 görüntüleme • 1 yıl önce

𝗗𝗢𝗘𝗦 𝗣𝗥𝗘𝗦𝗜𝗗𝗘𝗡𝗧 𝗠𝗡𝗔𝗡𝗚𝗔𝗚𝗪𝗔 𝗗𝗘𝗦𝗘𝗥𝗩𝗘 𝗔 𝗧𝗘𝗥𝗠 𝗘𝗫𝗧𝗘𝗡𝗦𝗜𝗢𝗡? 𝗟𝗘𝗧𝗦 𝗡𝗢𝗧 𝗚𝗘𝗧 𝗗𝗜𝗦𝗧𝗥𝗔𝗖𝗧𝗘𝗗. ZANU PF cadres are trying to come up with all sorts of dirty allegations about me to derail us from debating the amendment of the constitution to extend his term. But at the end of the day we need to ask ourselves, does he deserve a term extension. Has he been successful enough to deserve a term extension? CAB3

𝗗𝗢𝗘𝗦 𝗣𝗥𝗘𝗦𝗜𝗗𝗘𝗡𝗧 𝗠𝗡𝗔𝗡𝗚𝗔𝗚𝗪𝗔 𝗗𝗘𝗦𝗘𝗥𝗩𝗘 𝗔 𝗧𝗘𝗥𝗠 𝗘𝗫𝗧𝗘𝗡𝗦𝗜𝗢𝗡? 𝗟𝗘𝗧𝗦 𝗡𝗢𝗧 𝗚𝗘𝗧 𝗗𝗜𝗦𝗧𝗥𝗔𝗖𝗧𝗘𝗗. ZANU PF cadres are trying to come up with all sorts of dirty allegations about me to derail us from debating the amendment of the constitution to extend his term. But at the end of the day we need to ask ourselves, does he deserve a term extension. Has he been successful enough to deserve a term extension? CAB3

Rutendo Matinyarare

113,136 görüntüleme • 5 ay önce

US President Donald Trump has publicly conceded that attempting a third term in office would likely be unlawful. Trump has repeatedly raised the possibility of running in 2028 despite a two-term limit set by the US Constitution.

US President Donald Trump has publicly conceded that attempting a third term in office would likely be unlawful. Trump has repeatedly raised the possibility of running in 2028 despite a two-term limit set by the US Constitution.

Al Jazeera English

136,696 görüntüleme • 17 gün önce

According to Tafadzwa Chidawo Parliament using the ⅔ majority can pass Amendment Bill nbr 3. He said, the Bill does not seek to extend term limit but term length. Furthermore, the Constitution of Zim, only seeks referendum if there is a need to amend term limits not term length

According to Tafadzwa Chidawo Parliament using the ⅔ majority can pass Amendment Bill nbr 3. He said, the Bill does not seek to extend term limit but term length. Furthermore, the Constitution of Zim, only seeks referendum if there is a need to amend term limits not term length

COZWVA

14,903 görüntüleme • 5 ay önce

We need term limits for members of Congress. Florida has already certified a proposed amendment under Article V of the Constitution and other states are poised to follow suit. At the invitation of the U.S. Term Limits organization, I traveled today to encourage other state legislators to follow Florida's lead and pass a resolution to call for a constitutional amendment for congressional term limits. We will never turn our country around if we don't change the incentives in DC. Term limits are supported by huge majorities of Americans -- it's time to make it happen!

We need term limits for members of Congress. Florida has already certified a proposed amendment under Article V of the Constitution and other states are poised to follow suit. At the invitation of the U.S. Term Limits organization, I traveled today to encourage other state legislators to follow Florida's lead and pass a resolution to call for a constitutional amendment for congressional term limits. We will never turn our country around if we don't change the incentives in DC. Term limits are supported by huge majorities of Americans -- it's time to make it happen!

Ron DeSantis

1,717,273 görüntüleme • 2 yıl önce

🟣The legendary Christiane Christiane Amanpour did the Lord’s work in this foreboding 2018 CNN interview. In it, she asked Mr Mnangagwa whether he believed Robert Mugabe had stayed in power too long. Almost prophetically, she further asked whether Mnangagwa would do the same. Mnangagwa said he would not overstay because the Constitution forbids any person from staying on beyond the 2-term limit of ten years. Someone please tell Christiane Amanpour that we are back where we started. ZANU PF is about to destroy the Constitution to give Mr Mnangagwa a third term. He is at the brink of breaching his undertaking and the supreme law. They were not fighting against Mugabe. They were fighting to become him. We need new leaders.🇿🇼

🟣The legendary Christiane Christiane Amanpour did the Lord’s work in this foreboding 2018 CNN interview. In it, she asked Mr Mnangagwa whether he believed Robert Mugabe had stayed in power too long. Almost prophetically, she further asked whether Mnangagwa would do the same. Mnangagwa said he would not overstay because the Constitution forbids any person from staying on beyond the 2-term limit of ten years. Someone please tell Christiane Amanpour that we are back where we started. ZANU PF is about to destroy the Constitution to give Mr Mnangagwa a third term. He is at the brink of breaching his undertaking and the supreme law. They were not fighting against Mugabe. They were fighting to become him. We need new leaders.🇿🇼

Fadzayi Mahere🇿🇼

59,167 görüntüleme • 2 yıl önce

The resolution by ZANU PF to extend the presidential term limit marks a new low in our country. It has to be resisted by all right thinking Zimbabweans. It is a grave step towards totalitarianism and the creation of a political dynasty. Totally WRONG

The resolution by ZANU PF to extend the presidential term limit marks a new low in our country. It has to be resisted by all right thinking Zimbabweans. It is a grave step towards totalitarianism and the creation of a political dynasty. Totally WRONG

Sen Douglas Mwonzora

34,738 görüntüleme • 10 ay önce

After being brutally assaulted by alleged state agents in the alleged presence of the police Prof Lovemore Madhuku calls for street protests against moves by ZANU PF to extend President of Zimbabwe term of office by two more years. Police deny involvement- say nothing about attackers.

After being brutally assaulted by alleged state agents in the alleged presence of the police Prof Lovemore Madhuku calls for street protests against moves by ZANU PF to extend President of Zimbabwe term of office by two more years. Police deny involvement- say nothing about attackers.

HStvNews

64,671 görüntüleme • 6 ay önce

“We have people in ZANU PF who themselves are not ZANU PF…” Meeting editors today, President Mnangagwa says he will retire when his current term ends. Some within his party want to amend the Constitution to allow him to stay beyond 2028 by extending his current term.

“We have people in ZANU PF who themselves are not ZANU PF…” Meeting editors today, President Mnangagwa says he will retire when his current term ends. Some within his party want to amend the Constitution to allow him to stay beyond 2028 by extending his current term.

newZWire

163,039 görüntüleme • 1 yıl önce

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!

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!

Prof Jonathan Moyo

13,203 görüntüleme • 4 ay önce

📹 Tendai Biti, one of the conveners of a movement to resist attempts to amend the constitution and extend President Emmerson Mnangagwa’s term speaks outside SAPES Trust which was bombed overnight. “It’s a non-partisan, non-political effort to defend the constitution,” he says.

📹 Tendai Biti, one of the conveners of a movement to resist attempts to amend the constitution and extend President Emmerson Mnangagwa’s term speaks outside SAPES Trust which was bombed overnight. “It’s a non-partisan, non-political effort to defend the constitution,” he says.

ZimLive

50,413 görüntüleme • 10 ay önce

#UPDATE South Africa’s government says an unannounced trip to Zimbabwe by President Cyril Ramaphosa was a “working visit… to discuss issues of mutual and bilateral interests.” Ramaphosa flew in military chopper with Mnangagwa and two tender magnates - Wicknell Chivayo and Kudakwashe Tagwirei - to the Zimbabwe president’s farm in Kwekwe, sparking speculation over the purpose of the visit amid a Zanu PF plot to extend Mnangagwa’s term from 2028-2030. Tagwirei, who is under US and UK sanctions, is reportedly eyeing the presidency as Mnangagwa’s successor

#UPDATE South Africa’s government says an unannounced trip to Zimbabwe by President Cyril Ramaphosa was a “working visit… to discuss issues of mutual and bilateral interests.” Ramaphosa flew in military chopper with Mnangagwa and two tender magnates - Wicknell Chivayo and Kudakwashe Tagwirei - to the Zimbabwe president’s farm in Kwekwe, sparking speculation over the purpose of the visit amid a Zanu PF plot to extend Mnangagwa’s term from 2028-2030. Tagwirei, who is under US and UK sanctions, is reportedly eyeing the presidency as Mnangagwa’s successor

ZimLive

367,040 görüntüleme • 3 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?.”

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

TheNewsHawks

16,586 görüntüleme • 4 ay önce

#MnangagwaHiddenAgendaExposed #HeBasicallyWantsAThirdTermTo2033 The cat is now out of the bag: Zanu PF Harare provincial chair Godwills Masimirembwa - who is vocal on the current internal political power dynamics and the attendant brinkmanship - says President Emmerson Mnangagwa should extend his rule beyond his 2028 second term constitutional limit to 2033 - which means a third term.

#MnangagwaHiddenAgendaExposed #HeBasicallyWantsAThirdTermTo2033 The cat is now out of the bag: Zanu PF Harare provincial chair Godwills Masimirembwa - who is vocal on the current internal political power dynamics and the attendant brinkmanship - says President Emmerson Mnangagwa should extend his rule beyond his 2028 second term constitutional limit to 2033 - which means a third term.

TheNewsHawks

21,460 görüntüleme • 1 yıl önce

🔸Dear Zimbabwe Republic Police, Why are you afraid of enforcing the law against ZANU PF? If an ordinary citizen tried this, would you allow them to get away with it? The number plate is there. Have any investigations taken place? Are ZANU PF above the law? We need new leaders.🇿🇼

🔸Dear Zimbabwe Republic Police, Why are you afraid of enforcing the law against ZANU PF? If an ordinary citizen tried this, would you allow them to get away with it? The number plate is there. Have any investigations taken place? Are ZANU PF above the law? We need new leaders.🇿🇼

Fadzayi Mahere🇿🇼

42,964 görüntüleme • 1 yıl önce

The war veterans association has said that the need to allow President of Zimbabwe to continue beyond 2028 so that he finishes projects he started do not require Ammendment the constitution as its not a national crisis. They are clear that they will not support the term extension. Video Credit HStvNews

The war veterans association has said that the need to allow President of Zimbabwe to continue beyond 2028 so that he finishes projects he started do not require Ammendment the constitution as its not a national crisis. They are clear that they will not support the term extension. Video Credit HStvNews

Gerrard Anko Ged Belts

38,635 görüntüleme • 1 yıl önce

🔸Good day Nick Mangwana, Let’s assume there’s a need to maintain law and order. The Constitution gives this mandate to Zimbabwe Republic Police. Why are we seeing soldiers all over the streets? Who has deployed the army? What is their role? In terms of what law have they been deployed? We want peace. We need new leaders.🇿🇼

🔸Good day Nick Mangwana, Let’s assume there’s a need to maintain law and order. The Constitution gives this mandate to Zimbabwe Republic Police. Why are we seeing soldiers all over the streets? Who has deployed the army? What is their role? In terms of what law have they been deployed? We want peace. We need new leaders.🇿🇼

Fadzayi Mahere🇿🇼

139,594 görüntüleme • 1 yıl önce