Online Reporter
THE debate surrounding Bill 3 and the proposal to extend the President’s term to seven years has entered a new phase, revealing shifting tactics among those opposed to the idea both before and after its adoption by the Zanu-PF People’s Conference.
When the conference endorsed the 2030 extension, resistance emerged immediately. Delegates were warned that although the resolution had passed, its implementation would require two national referendums, a claim presented as both legally unavoidable and politically dangerous. The message was clear: the process would be too risky, too costly, and ultimately unworkable.
The intention was unmistakable — to frighten supporters, stall momentum, and push for the abandonment of the proposal.
That strategy collapsed once legal clarification confirmed that no referendum is required. With their central argument gone, opponents quickly shifted to a new line of attack. Attention turned to provisions added to Bill 3 during the drafting stage — measures not included in the original 2030 resolution.
These additions include the proposal for the President to be elected through Parliament, along with several other governance adjustments.
These new elements are now being used as a proxy to fight the 2030 extension indirectly, allowing critics to avoid confronting the core issue head-on. Yet at the heart of the matter remains the same question: the extension of ED’s rule.
If the emerging groups were acting in good faith, they would participate openly in the ongoing nationwide consultations, during which Zanu-PF leadership is meeting members to explain the additions and gather views.
Genuine concerns are being raised through these formal platforms, which offer an orderly, structured mechanism for input.
It is also important to recognise that not all who went to war are members of Zanu-PF. Many liberation stalwarts lived and died outside the party. Numerous war veterans today are not Zanu-PF members. Being a veteran does not automatically confer party membership; membership is defined by adherence to party rules, structures, and discipline.
Those opposed to President Mnangagwa’s continued leadership should come out openly and contest him at the next Congress. If he were to lose, he is widely regarded as someone who would step down honourably from both party and national leadership if instructed to do so by the party.
The constitutional amendments under consideration are intended to address the nation’s long-term governance requirements, rather than serve the interests of any single individual. Zimbabweans — whether individuals, groups, or institutions — should be free to express their views on the proposals without fear or restriction.
Parliament, fully empowered by the Constitution to debate, amend, and conclude Bill 3 without holding a referendum, must be guided by a broad and open national conversation.
As the debate continues, the collapse of the referendum narrative has exposed the evolving strategies and manoeuvring around Bill 3. Democracy is ultimately about the majority: Zanu-PF won the last election with a two-thirds majority and is constitutionally empowered to make and unmake laws. Within the party, as in any electoral process, resolutions are debated, adopted, and become binding.
Those who lose the debate are expected to abide by the collective decision, not undermine it by hiding behind objections to additions in a proposed Bill — additions that are still under discussion within party structures and are not yet final. —O Gutu
