TERM LIMIT WAR ERUPTS! Lawyer Slams ‘Propaganda Machine’ Over Presidential Tenure
A constitutional storm is brewing and prominent lawyer Dr Justice Mavedzenge is firing back.
The constitutional lecturer says he is “debunking toxic propaganda” allegedly being pushed by political heavyweight Jonathan Moyo, Justice Minister Ziyambi Ziyambi, and the ruling party ZANU PF over Zimbabwe’s presidential term limits.
At the centre of the explosive debate is the Constitution of Zimbabwe specifically Sections 95(2)(b) and 91(2).
Section 328(1) defines a “term limit provision” as one that limits the length of time a person may hold public office. According to Mavedzenge, the answer is straightforward: Section 95(2)(b), which fixes a single presidential term at five years, is the true term limit clause because it directly regulates how long a President may serve.
Section 91(2), he argues, does something entirely different. It bars a person from running for President after already serving two terms. That provision governs eligibility to apply for the job not the duration one may hold it.
“It’s about qualification versus tenure,” Mavedzenge insists.
He cites the landmark Constitutional Court ruling in Marx Mupungu v Minister of Justice, where all seven judges declared that Section 95(2)(b) is “undoubtedly” a term limit provision and therefore cannot be amended without a national referendum.
For Mavedzenge, the legal position is settled and untouchable without the people’s direct vote.
“No amount of propaganda,” he warns, “can override the Constitution.”
As political temperatures rise, the battle over presidential tenure is shaping up to be one of the fiercest constitutional showdowns yet