Online Reporter
Fidelis Munyoro, Zimpapers Writer
ZANU-PF has defended its intention to amend the Constitution to extend President Mnangagwa’s tenure beyond the 2028 term limit, arguing the matter is premature and speculative.
The party, however, contends the amendment process remains lawful and procedural.
This follows an application by Mr Mbuso Fuzwayo, secretary-general of the pressure group Ibhetshu LikaZulu, seeking to block Zanu-PF’s alleged attempt to extend President Mnangagwa’s term to 2030.
Mr Fuzwayo is the first applicant, while pressure group Ibhetshu Likazulu is the second, with Zanu-PF named as the first respondent.
The second to fifth respondents are listed as Justice, Legal and Parliamentary Affairs Minister Ziyambi Ziyambi, Speaker of the National Assembly Advocate Jacob Mudenda, Attorney-General Mrs Virginia Mabiza, and President Mnangagwa, respectively.
Ibhetshu Likazulu and Mr Fuzwayo are petitioning the Constitutional Court for direct access to challenge alleged plans to amend Section 95(2) of the Constitution, aimed at extending Mnangagwa’s term in office.
Fuzwayo argues the proposed amendments to Sections 95(2)(b) and 143(1) of the Constitution violate the requirement for a national referendum under Section 328(7) and infringe on citizens’ political rights.
In response, Zanu-PF’s national political commissar, Cde Munyaradzi Machacha, deposed an affidavit opposing the application.
Cde Machacha argued the application was procedurally flawed, speculative and premature, as no formal legal process has commenced to amend the Constitution.
“The matter is not ripe, as the cause of action is based on a complaint against a desire that has not yet materialised into an amendment to the Constitution. Until such an amendment exists, the complaint is abstract, and the court ought to refuse the invitation to speculate,” Cde Machacha said.
Zanu-PF contends that the amendments are grounded in constitutional provisions allowing changes to term length under Section 328(5), which does not require a referendum.
Cde Machacha distinguished this from term limit provisions under Section 328(7), which would necessitate a referendum. He emphasised that the current process does not aim to amend Section 91(2), which governs term limits.
“The Constitution of Zimbabwe is amendable, as are all democratic constitutions worldwide. The issue is not whether there is a desire to amend but whether any amendment will follow the prescribed constitutional process,” Cde Machacha said, adding that public hearings and legislative scrutiny would precede any amendment.
The activist’s application also sought an interdict to halt the implementation of Zanu-PF’s 2024 and 2025 conference resolutions, which directed the Government to initiate the amendment process.
Mr Fuzwayo alleged that these resolutions undermine the Constitution and public participation.
Cde Machacha rejected these claims.
“Resolution 1 of 2024 is achievable without amending Section 328 or holding a referendum. The desired reforms amend contingent term length provisions, not fixed term limits, and are therefore amendable under Section 328(5).”
He further argued that shorter term cycles have hindered governance across Africa, fostering populism, policy paralysis, and disputed elections. Resolution 1 of 2024, he explained, seeks to align Zimbabwe with a growing continental shift towards longer terms to enhance political stability and economic progress.
Cde Machacha, in his affidavit, assured the court that Zanu-PF, as the party that spearheaded Zimbabwe’s 2013 Constitution, remains committed to constitutionalism.
“Any constitutional amendment will adhere strictly to the rigorous procedures outlined in Section 328 of the Constitution. The court cannot interdict a process that has yet to begin or speculate on its legality,” he said.
The court will determine whether Mr Fuzwayo’s application has merit and whether Zanu-PF’s intentions align with constitutional provisions. The court is yet to set the date for hearing the matter.
