Online Reporter
Raymond Jaravaza
PROMINENT lawyer and former National Peace and Reconciliation Commission commissioner Advocate Obert Gutu has thrown his weight behind the Constitutional Amendment Bill No. 3, saying the proposed changes do not require a referendum.
In an interview, Advocate Gutu said extending the length of a term is not the same as altering a term limit, which bars a President from serving more than two terms, and therefore does not trigger the referendum requirement provided for under Section 328(7) of the Constitution of Zimbabwe.
The proposed Bill seeks to introduce a seven-year presidential and parliamentary term, replacing the current five-year term, while maintaining the existing two-term limit for the President.
It also proposes several legal reforms aimed at strengthening constitutional governance, clarifying institutional roles, promoting political stability and improving the efficiency of State institutions.
“The current debate over whether Zimbabwe can extend its parliamentary and Presidential term cycle from five to seven years without a referendum has revived old constitutional tensions,” said Adv Gutu.
“When examined through the Constitutional Court’s ruling in Mupungu v Minister of Justice (2021), the answer becomes doctrinally clear. Extending the length of a term is not the same as altering a term limit, and therefore does not trigger the referendum requirement in Section 328(7).
Adv Gutu said the Mupungu case arose during litigation over the extension of the tenure of former Chief Justice Luke Malaba.
He said the High Court had initially ruled the extension unlawful after adopting an expansive interpretation of what constitutes a term limit provision.
“The High Court treated Section 186(1), which sets the retirement age for judges, and Section 186(2), which imposes a 15-year cap on judicial service, as functional equivalents of constitutional term limits,” Adv Gutu said.
“Under this approach, any amendment that allowed an incumbent to serve longer, whether by raising the retirement age or adjusting tenure conditions, was treated as altering a term limit provision.”
He said the High Court had concluded that such amendments required a referendum under Section 328(7), but this interpretation was later rejected during constitutional review.
Adv Gutu explained that term limits refer to the number of terms an office holder may serve, while tenure conditions relate to issues such as retirement age, renewal mechanisms, or the duration of each term.
“Term limit refers only to the number of terms and not the length of each term. Section 328(7) is triggered only when an amendment increases or removes the number of terms an incumbent may serve,” he said.
Adv Gutu noted that Amendment Bill No. 3 proposes to extend each parliamentary and presidential term from five to seven years while leaving the two-term limit unchanged.
