It is no longer in dispute that President Emmerson Dambudzo Mnangagwa is planning to extend his presidency beyond the constitutional two-term limit.
In spite of his assurances in early July 2024, at a rally in Mutare – that he would retire at the end of his current final term expiration in 2028 – there are already indications that he has absolutely no intentions of fulfilling his pledge.
Not that his announcement was some act of benevolence and humility – in the mold of South Africa’s first post-apartheid president, Nelson Rolihlahla Mandela, who retired after serving only one term, although he was eligible for another.
In fact, there was really no need for Mnangagwa to even announce his retirement in 2028, since this is a legal requirement as stipulated in sections 91(2) and 95(2b) of the Constitution of Zimbabwe.
He is currently serving his second and last term, which started on 4th September 2023 – and, as such, should be leaving office around September 2028.
Yet, we have, of late, been hearing reports of various ZANU PF groups that have been falling over each other in passing resolutions for him not to retire in 2028.
So far, the party’s Masvingo Provincial leadership as well as the Bulawayo and Midlands youth leagues have issued resolutions ‘urging’ Mnangagwa to remain in power until 2030.
The reason they have given is quite peculiar.
As far as they are concerned, Mnangagwa has been doing such a fantastic job as head of state that he deserves to extend this tenure beyond the legal limit to 2030 in order to see through his ‘Vision 2030’!
Wow!
It is undeniable that Mnangagwa plans to use these calls as justification to stay in power, under the ruse that, although genuinely wanted to retire (as he announced himself in public), he has no choice but to listen to the people, since ‘the voice of the people is the voice of god’.
We now know the drill.
Was this not the justification he used after usurping power, through unconstitutional means, from long-time tyrant Robert Gabriel Mugabe via a military coup in November 2017?
I am not even going to legitimize this utter absurdity by putting a capital ‘G’ to ‘god’ since this nonsense has absolutely nothing to do with Jehovah God whom I worship.
Now, this raises several worrisome issues that are not to be expected in a country that wants to be regarded as a civilized constitutional democracy.
For starters, are these people urging Mnangagwa to remain in power past his constitutional term limit seriously telling us that ZANU PF has no leadership continuity systems in place?
One would have expected this to be one of the most basic tenets of good governance .
Surely, carrying a national vision is not supposed to be the responsibility of only one person, particularly the one under whose leadership the idea was mooted.
There should be systems in place that, in the event of the incumbent departing office – for what ever reason, be it retirement, death, incapacitation, loss of an election, or even impeachment – the vision will still be continued by the next head of state.
It would truly be disconcerting if ZANU PF, especially as the political party in government, did not have such systems in place.
So, under what logic would the party justify making constitutional amendments to presidential term limits simply because one man ‘needs to see through his vision’?
What was to happen had, for instance, Mnangagwa actually came up with a ‘Vision 2050’, instead?
Was ZANU PF going to push for him to remain president till 2050?
Seeing that the party wants us to believe that there can be no one else to fulfil this ‘Vision 2030’, what is to happen if God was to call Mnangagwa today?
Would it mean that the vision for an ‘upper middle-income economy by 2030’ in Zimbabwe would also die with him?
Besides, ‘Vision 2030’ should not be Mnangagwa’s vision, but the nation’s vision.
This then brings up the second equally disturbing and linked issue.
Does this push by some in ZANU PF – for Mnangagwa to remain head of state well after the constitutional two-term limit – signal a political party that lacks any other members with leadership qualities?
Are they surely saying that Mnangagwa is the only person (in a political party with supposedly millions of members) who can lead Zimbabwe – to such an extent that amending the Constitution is the only way forward?
If that is the case, then this is frightening!
Again, I ask: So if Mnangagwa was to take his last breath today, would that result in ZANU PF failing to produce a replacement?
I am not trying to be funny with these questions.
Let us remember that a country’s constitution is a sacrosanct document, which can not be tampered with willy-nilly.
It defines the nation and sets the path it needs to follow.
That is why it is harder to amend the constitution than any other law.
In most cases, enacting, changing, or repelling a law requires only a simple majority (50% plus one) in Parliament – whereas the constitution needs two-thirds [section 328(5)].
As a matter of fact, in the Constitution of Zimbabwe, such provisions as term limits, declaration of rights (Chapter 4), and agricultural land (Chapter 16), in addition to a two-thirds majority, also require a referendum [section 328(9)].
This speaks volumes to the sacredness of this document.
As such, any constitutional amendments need to be very crucial and usually in the best interest of the people, as opposed to only a particular individual.
As such, it becomes most unacceptable when the country’s supreme law is manipulated at the whims of ZANU PF merely in order to see Mnangagwa extend his tenure.
In fact, it is most unsettling that ever since the Mnangagwa administration came into office in 2017, there have not been any significant constitutional amendments that were genuinely for the benefit of ordinary Zimbabweans.
What we have witnessed, instead, have been amendments to give the president more powers, especially over the appointment of court judges, extension of the retirement age of judges, and the removal of the presidential running mate [Constitution of Zimbabwe Amendment (No. 2) Act, 2021].
All of these were meant only to benefit Mnangagwa himself, whilst consolidating his grip on power.
What constitutional amendments have been made that effectively strengthened citizens’ rights or improved their standards of living in the past seven years that Mnangagwa has been in power?
If anything, ordinary Zimbabweans have become more and more disenfranchised as their constitutional rights have repeatedly been wilfully trampled upon, under an increasingly shrinking democratic space.
I will now move on to my third point.
For argument’s sake, let us say ZANU PF sincerely believes that Mnangagwa is the country’s best (and only) foot forward in developing Zimbabwe.
There is nowhere in the democratic world where the supreme law of the land has been amended based on such a simplistic premise.
I made reference to Mandela at the beginning of my discourse.
No one can dispute that he was one of the most beloved and popular leaders of our time, in the whole wide world – but more specifically, in his own South Africa.
He is greatly revered even today – 11 years after his death.
Yet, despite this massive adoration – for a man who was larger than life – there was no way South Africans were ever going to amend their constitution simply to allow him to go beyond the two-term limit.
We never heard the governing ANC party clamouring for Mandela to serve till, let’s say, 2020, so that he could ‘see through his dream for a rainbow nation where everyone was equal’!
As a matter of fact, he was gentleman enough to serve only one term (1994 to 1999) by doing the right thing of retiring on account of advanced age.
Interestingly, when he stepped down as the head of state of South Africa in 1999, he was 81 years old – having been born in 1918.
This is the current age of our president in Zimbabwe!
Similarly, 81 years old is the same age as current US president Joe Biden – who was recently pushed to withdraw from the November 2024 presidential elections by his own Democratic Party due to the same reason.
Nonetheless, for some strange reason, some in ZANU PF believe Mnangagwa should actually go on until, at the very least, the age of 88 years old (in 2030)!
Furthermore, in 2001, then US president George W. Bush reached an approval rating of 90 percent – the highest of any American head of state – after the 11th September terrorist attacks.
Yet, never did we hear his Republican Party pushing for the US Constitution to be amended for Bush to remain in office past his two-term limit in 2009, ostensibly so that he can ‘finish the war on terror’!
So, what is so special about Mnangagwa?
Let us not forget that – unlike Mandela and Bush – Mnangagwa’s popularity has never been anything to write home about.
If anything, the man has struggled to convincingly win the two elections in which he has participated.
Despite the controversial and debatable ‘wins’, in 2018, he secured a paltry 50.8 percent of the popular vote, whilst most recently in 2023 he only managed to garner 52.6 percent.
In fact, in both elections, he actually received far fewer votes than his own ZANU PF party’s parliamentary candidates!
What justification is there, then, for a head of state who struggles to win elections to be rewarded with a constitutional amendment to extend his term?
For what reason can such a sacrosanct document, as the supreme law of the land, be changed simply to accommodate an individual who fails to win the hearts of over 53 percent of the population of Zimbabwe?
In addition, who would want an individual who has presided over the impoverishment and suffering of millions of ordinary Zimbabweans to stay in power even for a day more?
It gets even more interesting.
As we have already ascertained, even had Mnangagwa been loved by 99.99 percent of Zimbabweans, that would still not have been sufficient reason to amend the Constitution.
Nonetheless, there is another constitutional hurdle awaiting his ambitions, regardless of what some in ZANU PF may desire.
Section 328(7) is very clear.
“Notwithstanding any other provision of this section, an amendment to a term-limit provision, the effect of which is to extend the length of time that a person may hold or occupy any public office, does not apply in relation to any person who held or occupied that office, or an equivalent office, at any time before the amendment.”
Need I say more?
The Constitution of Zimbabwe has already spoken – loud and clear!
● Tendai Ruben Mbofana is a social justice advocate and writer. Please feel free to WhatsApp or Call: +263715667700 | +263782283975, or email: mbofana.tendairuben73@gmail.com, or visit website: https://mbofanatendairuben.news.blog/
