ๆญฃๅœจๅŠ ่ฝฝ่ง†้ข‘...

่ง†้ข‘ๅŠ ่ฝฝๅคฑ่ดฅ

WATCH | Listen to this university student explaining why she supports Constitutional Amendment Bill No. 3, which proposes extending presidential and parliamentary terms from five to seven years.

36,881 ๆฌก่ง‚็œ‹ โ€ข 4 ไธชๆœˆๅ‰ โ€ขvia X (Twitter)

0 ๆก่ฏ„่ฎบ

ๆš‚ๆ— ่ฏ„่ฎบ

ๅŽŸๅง‹ๅธ–ๅญ็š„่ฏ„่ฎบๅฐ†ๆ˜พ็คบๅœจ่ฟ™้‡Œ

็›ธๅ…ณ่ง†้ข‘

This is supposed to be an opposition Member of Parliament in Zimbabwe called Samantha Mureyani from Manicaland. This Member of Parliament spoke in Zimbabweโ€™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 Zimbabweโ€™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 Zimbabweโ€™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 partyโ€™s Secretary-General, which he was not, and exploited the vacuum created by the absence of formal structures and leadership.

Hopewell Chinโ€™ono

54,741 ๆฌก่ง‚็œ‹ โ€ข 1 ไธชๆœˆๅ‰

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: โ€œThose 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?.โ€

TheNewsHawks

16,579 ๆฌก่ง‚็œ‹ โ€ข 3 ไธชๆœˆๅ‰