Justice Alfred Mavedzenge Alleges “Constitutional Coup” Plot by Jonathan Moyo:
By Reason Wafawarova
Constitutional law expert Alfred Mavedzenge has launched a scathing critique of former Cabinet minister Jonathan Moyo, alleging that the exiled academic is attempting to engineer what he describes as a “constitutional coup” in Zimbabwe.
.l
In remarks circulating on social media, Mavedzenge characterises Moyo — whom he refers to as “Prof Mukoma J” — as the “professorial brains behind Coup 2.0,” arguing that the former Information Minister is pursuing constitutional reforms not out of principle, but for calculated political survival and revenge.
Safe Return and Political Leverage:
According to Mavedzenge, Moyo’s primary objective is to secure a safe return to Zimbabwe without facing prosecution over alleged past crimes and controversial statements, including remarks critical of President Emmerson Mnangagwa, whom Moyo once described in unflattering terms.
Mavedzenge suggests that Moyo believes Mnangagwa “owes him,” particularly in light of past debates within ZANU-PF circles over presidential term limits. He references statements previously attributed to senior ruling party figures, including Patrick Chinamasa, who reportedly indicated that extending a presidential term would require constitutional referendums.
The legal scholar argues that Moyo now seeks to influence constitutional reform in a way that would align with his personal political calculations.
Targeting the Military’s Constitutional Role:
Mavedzenge further contends that Moyo harbours grievances against the Zimbabwe Defence Forces following the November 2017 military intervention that led to the removal of former President Robert Mugabe from power.
That intervention, widely described as a military-assisted transition, forced Moyo into exile.
According to Mavedzenge, Moyo is now advocating amendments to provisions defining the role of the Defence Forces in defending and upholding the Constitution — a move the lawyer interprets as an attempt to weaken the military institutionally.
“He has a bone to chew with those men and women in uniform,” Mavedzenge asserts, suggesting that the proposed changes are less about constitutional refinement and more about settling political scores.
Reshaping the Presidency
Perhaps most controversially, Mavedzenge alleges that Moyo’s constitutional proposals aim to fundamentally alter the nature of executive power in Zimbabwe.
He claims Moyo seeks to transform the presidency into a position dependent on parliamentary selection rather than direct majority vote — effectively making the Head of State “a creature of Parliament.”
Such a change, Mavedzenge argues, would make it easier for Parliament to remove and replace the President should relations sour, thereby weakening the executive office.
“Because he does not trust Mukuru,” Mavedzenge argues, “Prof Mukoma J seeks to weaken the Presidency.”
A High-Stakes Constitutional Debate:
Mavedzenge’s remarks add fuel to an already charged debate about constitutional reform, executive authority, and the legacy of the 2017 political transition.
While Moyo has positioned himself in recent years as a constitutional commentator and critic from exile, his evolving posture toward the current administration has sparked speculation across Zimbabwe’s political spectrum.
Whether his proposals represent principled constitutional reform or strategic political maneuvering remains a matter of intense contestation.
What is clear is that the battle over Zimbabwe’s constitutional future continues to be shaped not only by legal arguments — but also by unresolved rivalries from the country’s turbulent recent past.