ะ—ะฐะณั€ัƒะทะบะฐ ะฒะธะดะตะพ...

ะะต ัƒะดะฐะปะพััŒ ะทะฐะณั€ัƒะทะธั‚ัŒ ะฒะธะดะตะพ

ะะฐ ะณะปะฐะฒะฝัƒัŽ

โ€œ๐€ ๐ฅ๐ž๐š๐๐ž๐ซ ๐ฆ๐ฎ๐ฌ๐ญ ๐›๐ž ๐š๐›๐ฅ๐ž ๐ญ๐จ ๐ข๐๐ž๐ง๐ญ๐ข๐Ÿ๐ฒ ๐ฐ๐ก๐ž๐ง ๐ญ๐ก๐ž๐ข๐ซ ๐จ๐ฐ๐ง ๐ž๐ ๐จ ๐ก๐š๐ฌ ๐›๐ž๐œ๐จ๐ฆ๐ž ๐ญ๐จ๐ฑ๐ข๐œโ€ Above quote is borrowed from Adam Grant, an organization psychologist and author of many books. He makes the point that toxic ego in leaders manifests as a need to silence criticism and to intimidate those...

DumsSaleshando's profile picture

Dumelang Saleshando

11,671 subscribers

47,374 ะฟั€ะพัะผะพั‚ั€ะพะฒ โ€ข 8 ะผะตััั†ะตะฒ ะฝะฐะทะฐะด โ€ขvia X (Twitter)

ะšะพะผะผะตะฝั‚ะฐั€ะธะธ: 0

ะะตั‚ ะดะพัั‚ัƒะฟะฝั‹ั… ะบะพะผะผะตะฝั‚ะฐั€ะธะตะฒ

ะ—ะดะตััŒ ะฟะพัะฒัั‚ัั ะบะพะผะผะตะฝั‚ะฐั€ะธะธ ะธะท ะพั€ะธะณะธะฝะฐะปัŒะฝะพะณะพ ะฟะพัั‚ะฐ

ะŸะพั…ะพะถะธะต ะฒะธะดะตะพ

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

54,768 ะฟั€ะพัะผะพั‚ั€ะพะฒ โ€ข 2 ะผะตััั†ะตะฒ ะฝะฐะทะฐะด

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 peopleโ€™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 Chinโ€™ono

49,816 ะฟั€ะพัะผะพั‚ั€ะพะฒ โ€ข 4 ะผะตััั†ะตะฒ ะฝะฐะทะฐะด

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 Mnangagwaโ€™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 Courtโ€™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 veteransโ€™ 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 Chinโ€™ono

29,767 ะฟั€ะพัะผะพั‚ั€ะพะฒ โ€ข 1 ะผะตััั† ะฝะฐะทะฐะด

Professor Lovemore Madhuku in his Own Words Making the Case for Parliament to Indirectly Elect the President as an Electoral College: โ€œWe must not put in the Constitution of the country a provision that is dependant on what happens in a political party. Thatโ€™s the point Iโ€™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 peopleโ€”direct electionโ€”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 Iโ€™m giving you this President, and so forth. Thatโ€™s the point Iโ€™m making. And on that point, Iโ€™m making it right across the world; thatโ€™s what they do.โ€ - Professor Madhuku, addressing a โ€œHeal Zimbabwe Trustโ€ public meeting in Harare on 22 February 2020. COMMENT: Professor Lovemore Madhukuโ€™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 notโ€”as it currently doesโ€” 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 Presidentโ€™s political party โ€œis saying.โ€ 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: Parliamentโ€”the institution chosen by the peopleโ€”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 โ€œgiveโ€ 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 Presidentโ€”whether at the start of a new term or in an unforeseen vacancyโ€”Zimbabwe will secure stronger democratic stability, and keep the highest office firmly within the peopleโ€™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 Madhukuโ€™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 countryโ€™s democracy in the national interest!

Prof Jonathan Moyo

88,259 ะฟั€ะพัะผะพั‚ั€ะพะฒ โ€ข 3 ะผะตััั†ะตะฒ ะฝะฐะทะฐะด

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

Hopewell Chinโ€™ono

45,815 ะฟั€ะพัะผะพั‚ั€ะพะฒ โ€ข 2 ะผะตััั†ะตะฒ ะฝะฐะทะฐะด

Reverend Dr Kupa Mtata, convenor of Sungano yeVanhu/Ubumbano loMphakathi (The Peopleโ€™s Coalition), has defended the coalitionโ€™s campaign against Constitutional Amendment No. 3, arguing that the proposed changes cannot lawfully proceed without the direct consent of Zimbabweans through a referendum. Speaking at the launch of the coalitionโ€”which brings together the Defend the Constitution Platform (DCP), Constitution Defence Forum (CDF), National Constitutional Assembly (NCA), Zimbabwe Congress of Trade Unions (ZCTU), Zimbabwe Constitution Movement (ZICOMO) and the War Veterans Pressure Groupโ€”Dr Mtata said the campaign was about defending the Constitution rather than supporting any political party. โ€œI am here as a churchman, not as a partisan politician,โ€ he said. โ€œThis is about honouring the agreement we made together as a nation and ensuring that the Constitution remains supreme, not the ambitions of politicians.โ€ Dr Mtata argued that the Constitution is a covenant created collectively by Zimbabweans and that no individual or group has the authority to alter key provisions without the peopleโ€™s genuine consent. He accused the government of violating the Constitution in four fundamental ways. First, he said there had been a procedural violation because citizens were not genuinely consulted on the proposed amendments. Instead of allowing open national debate, he said, the proposals were presented through state-controlled media as decisions that citizens were simply expected to accept, while opposing views were denied space. โ€œThis is not consultation,โ€ he said. โ€œThis is propaganda.โ€ Secondly, Mtata alleged that Parliament had been corrupted, claiming some legislators had abandoned the interests of their constituents for personal gain. โ€œWhen parliamentarians are bought like goods in a market, that is not leadership. That is corruption,โ€ he said, arguing that MPs who ignore the wishes of those who elected them lose their moral legitimacy to represent the people. His third concern was what he described as intimidation and harassment of citizens who opposed the Bill. According to Mtata, individuals who criticised the proposed amendments had been threatened or intimidated, undermining freedom of expression and weakening democracy. โ€œWhen people are denied the right to express opinions that differ from those in power, that is not democracy. That is dictatorship,โ€ he said. Mtata argued that Constitutional Amendment No. 3 unlawfully bypasses the referendum requirement contained in Section 328 of the Constitution. He said the Constitution expressly requires certain amendments to be approved directly by citizens through a referendum, particularly where changes affect the tenure or powers of those already in office. โ€œThe people, not Parliament, not politiciansโ€”must decide through a referendum,โ€ he said. โ€œThose entrusted with power should not extend their stay in office without the direct permission of the people.โ€ Mtata concluded by urging Zimbabweans to defend the Constitution, insisting that the countryโ€™s founding law belongs to its citizens and cannot be changed without their freely given consent.

Hopewell Chinโ€™ono

47,535 ะฟั€ะพัะผะพั‚ั€ะพะฒ โ€ข 1 ะผะตััั† ะฝะฐะทะฐะด

12 years ago today, the Parliament of Ukraine removed Viktor Yanukovych from the office of President and scheduled presidential elections for May 25, 2014. For all these years, Russian propaganda has been pushing the narrative of an "undemocratic coup" and the "illegitimacy" of Ukrainian authorities. But this is very easy to debunk: 1. The Parliament voted with a constitutional majority - 328(!) votes out of 450 (over 72%). A constitutional majority (300+ votes) has the full right to amend the Constitution, call early elections, and remove the President from office. 2. Representatives of all 5 parliamentary parties (including the presidentโ€™s own Party of Regions) and independents voted in favor. It was a complete consensus of the entire parliament. Opposition MPs said they were fulfilling the will of the Ukrainian people. MPs from the ruling coalition explained that the President had fled at the most critical moment - while Russia had already begun the annexation of Crimea. 3. Elections were held, and the next President was democratically elected by the majority of Ukrainians. This was the only correct decision in a situation where Russia had launched aggression and the President had betrayed the country and fled to the aggressor. Russian propaganda searches for controversial legal nuances. But the reality is simple: parliamentary consensus and democratic elections that clearly expressed the will of the people. Let me remind you: a coup is an unconstitutional change of power that lacks support from the majority of society. So how can a decision by the constitutional majority of Parliament to hold elections - which the majority of Ukrainians then won - be called a "coup"? Russians and their fans have called "illegitimate": Turchynov (acting President according to the Constitution of Ukraine), Poroshenko (democratically elected by the majority), and now Zelenskyy (who received a record number of votes). In the end, Russians would call ANY President of Ukraine illegitimate if he refuses to give Russia what it wants - or to turn Ukraine into a Kremlin puppet like Belarus. #RevolutionOfDignity #12YearsOfResistance #StandWithUkraine

Serhii Antonov

70,430 ะฟั€ะพัะผะพั‚ั€ะพะฒ โ€ข 5 ะผะตััั†ะตะฒ ะฝะฐะทะฐะด

NBCโ€™s Tom Llamas: โ€œI wonder, Ryan, if [King Charles III] was sending a subtle message โ€” a maybe not-so-subtle message โ€” to our President in he said โ€˜America's words carry weight and meaning and they have since the independence the actions of this great nation matter even more.โ€™โ€ Ryan Nobles: โ€œI don't see how you could not interpret it as such, Tom. And I have to say, being in the room and it may not have been picked up if you are watching on television, when he said those two lines, there was a hush, almost gasp you would describe from the Democratic side of the chamber in that moment. That clearly resonated with certain members of Congress in the room. And then when he drove that point home by referencing president Lincoln and the Gettysburg Address, saying the world may little know what we say but will never forget what we do, that was as powerful a moment as anything that he gave over the course of that roughly 25-minute speech. And there were multiple opportunities for him to use his subtle nature to drive home a point. Right before that section that you had brought up, Tom, he talked all about how the United Kingdom and the United States need to reinforce their alliance and that they will โ€˜continue to defend our shared values with partners in Europe and the Commonwealth across the worldโ€™ and that they โ€˜ignore the clarion calls to become ever more inward looking,โ€™ which, of course, has been a degree of criticism for the Trump administration at different points. The other thing I think is very interesting thing to point out, which you may not realize if you were watching at home, I had the prepared remarks in front of me, that the king did not at any point stray even a syllable away from the remarks that he had prepared to deliver hear in this chamber. A very research-much different approach from Donald Trump or any other president. Bill Clinton was known to stray from his script from time to time to drive home a point. Even when he was interrupted by applause or laughter, he would go immediately back to where he was in his prepared remarks. Just kind of an indication of the type of public speaker he is and the type of public figure he is that he had a very specific plan in mind, a very specific message that he wanted to send, and he did not deviate from that goal even little bit over the course of this speech.โ€

Curtis Houck

39,203 ะฟั€ะพัะผะพั‚ั€ะพะฒ โ€ข 3 ะผะตััั†ะตะฒ ะฝะฐะทะฐะด

The self-declared, self-proclaimed, self-styled Chanakya of Indian politics assured his party and his Sahib that he was going to secure a two-thirds majority in the Lok Sabha on the delimitation bill. A total of 528 MPs were present and voted on the 17th of April. According to the Constitution, to pass that amendment, two-thirds of those present and voting were required. So, with 528 members present, they needed 352 votes. He got 298. So, obviously, all their calculations were wrong. Their assumptions were wrong. They did not anticipate this level of opposition, unity, and solidarity. They were humiliated, and it was visible on the faces of the Home Minister and the Prime Minister. Now they want to get the delimitation bill passed. So first, they did Operation Lotus in West Bengal, and then Operation Tiger in Maharashtra. The delimitation bill was passed on the 23rd September, 2023, but it was notified on the night of April 16, 2026. The real reason for '400 Paar' was that they could redo the Constitution or have a new Constitution to ensure their age-old bugbear, which is reservation. Their game plan is that this monsoon session should be dominated by delimitation. But we will not allow that because there is the NEET issue, the CBSE issue, and the Ram Trust issue, which are far more serious issues affecting Indian society than the delimitation issue. : Congress General Secretary (Communications) Shri Jairam Ramesh

Congress

47,968 ะฟั€ะพัะผะพั‚ั€ะพะฒ โ€ข 1 ะผะตััั† ะฝะฐะทะฐะด