Zim News Blog -NEWS NETWORK

Being loyal Zimbabwean Citizens, members of the Zimbabwe Diaspora Initiative across the globe have followed developments around the Zimbabwe Constitutional Amendment Number Three Bill (CAB3) process with keen interest. We have watched footage of the process at the public hearings organised to gather evidence as part of the process, and noted how all the presentations made in the first two days of the process point to the need for a referendum.

Presenters supporting the amendments have said they want the term of office of the President, Parliament and Councillors extended to enable them to complete projects they promised to deliver during their election campaign. In the process, they have confirmed that some of the proposed amendments are term extension amendments as defined by the Constitution of Zimbabwe and require a referendum. A term-limit provision is defined in the Constitution of Zimbabwe as “a provision of this Constitution which limits the length of time that a person may hold or occupy a public office”. Subsection 7 of Section 328 states that 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. The need for a referendum was confirmed by former Attorney General, and Zanu PF Politburo Member Comrade Patrick Chinamasa to correctly interpret the constitution before the current process got into motion.

We have noted with concern footage of the selective selection of people to make presentations, with people speaking against CAB3 having microphone snatched away from them. We have seen footage of people being threatened by other participants when they give views opposed to the bill, and we have read stories of people who spoke against the bill being assaulted. We have also seen footage of people being assaulted, and property being snatched away from people who have spoken against CAB3 before the hearings by rowdy crowds in the capital. Footage of the violent manner in which the process took place have been screened on South African Broadcasting Corporation and other regional and international news outlets.
The police who we expected would maintain order at this consultation have been nowhere to be seen to protect the speakers and those being assaulted, both inside and outside the venues.

We have also noted with concern the limited number of centres available for people to air their views. Very few people have had access to the venues, hence have been denied their democratic right to express themselves.

The process has failed to meet democratic standards where people are allowed to freely voice their opinion without being interrupted or attacked. Parliament of Zimbabwe must accept that errors were made and to gain credibility, a fresh start to the process whose framework will include the holding of a referendum is the way forward. With Parliament having failed to manage the process, we strongly recommend the involvement of the Southern Africa Development Community (SADC) in guiding the process. At least one centre should be provided for every urban constituency where travel distance is short, and two or three centres must be provided for large rural constituencies depending on size and travelling distance for people to get to the centres.

For further information contact Padmore Kufa, the Zimbabwe Diaspora Vote Initiative Secretary for Information and Publicity on +61 414 477 659

Tendai Ruben Mbofana

The Constitution of Zimbabwe is not a mere collection of ink on paper to be manipulated by those with the sharpest semantic scalpels.

If you value my social justice advocacy and writing, please consider a financial contribution to keep it going. Contact me on WhatsApp: +263 715 667 700 or Email: mbofana.tendairuben73@gmail.com

It is a sacred covenant, a historical shield forged in the fires of a long struggle for democratic accountability.

When Professor Jonathan Moyo engages in intellectual gymnastics to bypass the fundamental safeguards of this document, he does more than just offer a “reading” of the law.

He strikes at the very heart of the nation’s democratic integrity.

The logic recently popularized by Moyo through a colorful diagram—purporting to show that Constitutional Amendment (No. 3) Bill 2026 can extend an incumbent’s tenure without a referendum—is a masterclass in such gymnastics.

It is a dangerous exercise in hyper-formalism that prioritizes the “label” of a provision over its substantive, constitutional “effect.”

At the core of Moyo’s flawed argument is the claim that Section 328(7) of the Constitution is a mechanical sequence of a “premise” and a “predicate.”

He suggests that unless the government explicitly seeks to amend a provision labeled as a “term limit,” the restrictive consequences of Section 328(7) do not apply.

This interpretation claims that because the proposed Bill targets the “duration” of a term in Section 95 rather than the “number” of terms in Section 91, the constitutional “premise” is missing.

This is a classic sleight of hand.

Moyo attempts to convince the public that the length of a term and the limit of a term are two unrelated concepts.

In the real world of constitutional law, they are two sides of the same coin.

​The most glaring weakness in Moyo’s logic is that it ignores the Constitution’s own dictionary.

Section 328(1) provides an airtight definition that effectively dismantles his entire “premise/predicate” diagram.

It states clearly that a “term-limit provision” means a provision of the Constitution which limits the length of time that a person may hold or occupy a public office.

If Section 95 of the Constitution currently dictates that a President serves a five-year term, then Section 95 is, by definition, a provision that limits the length of time a person may hold office.

To argue, as Moyo does, that changing this five-year limit to seven years does not constitute an amendment to a term-limit provision is not just a different interpretation—it is a direct defiance of the text itself.

​When the law says you cannot extend the “length of time” for an incumbent, it does not matter if you do so by adding a third term or by stretching the current term.

The result is the same.

The incumbent stays in power longer than the original constitutional contract allowed.

By focusing on the “premise” of which specific clause is being touched, Moyo attempts to ignore the “effect” of the change.

Yet, the Constitution specifically uses the phrase “the effect of which is to extend the length of time.”

This phrasing was chosen by the drafters precisely to prevent the kind of creative drafting we see in Moyo’s diagram.

It was meant to be a catch-all safety net that triggers based on the outcome of an amendment, not just its title.

​The visual representation provided by Moyo—using a traffic-light color scheme to imply a “logical” flow—is equally deceptive.

It frames the debate as a simple computer program where “If X is false, then Y does not happen.”

But the law is not an algorithm.

It is a set of principles designed to prevent the “mischief” of self-perpetuation.

The 2013 Constitution was born out of a consensus that no leader should be able to rewrite the rules to stay in power longer than initially agreed upon.

Section 328(7) is the constitutional dead-stop that explicitly prevents an incumbent from benefiting from any amendment to a term-limit provision.

​The only way to remove this “incumbent bar” to allow a sitting president to benefit is by amending Section 328 itself.

Section 328(9) mandates that any amendment to Section 328 must be treated as an amendment to the Declaration of Rights.

This means that such a change is legally impossible without a national referendum.

Accepting Moyo’s logic that “tenure” is different from “term limits” would set a catastrophic precedent.

It would suggest that any entrenched right in the Constitution could be hollowed out simply by changing the name of the provision that houses it.

If we allow the government to bypass the referendum requirement for term extensions by calling it a “structural recalibration” of the electoral cycle, what stops them from eroding the Declaration of Rights through similar semantic tricks?

This is what legal scholars call a “fraud on the Constitution.”

It is the act of following the letter of the law in a way that deliberately destroys the spirit and purpose of the law.

Furthermore, the argument that one Parliament cannot “shackle” future Parliaments is a misapplication of parliamentary sovereignty.

While it is true that a legislature can generally repeal the laws of its predecessors, a written Constitution is different.

It is specifically designed to shackle the government.

Its entire purpose is to set boundaries that a temporary majority in Parliament cannot cross without a mandate from the people.

To suggest that a two-thirds majority in Parliament has the “unassailable authority” to dismantle the term-limit framework is to suggest that we no longer have a supreme Constitution, but rather a supreme Parliament.

​Moyo’s diagram includes an “Incorrect Reading” section, marked with a red cross, which is perhaps its most ironic feature.

It claims that the opposing view “ignores the required premise.”

In truth, it is Moyo himself who ignores the fundamental premise of constitutionalism—that power is limited and that those in power cannot be the ones to decide how much longer they should stay.

The “consequence” for incumbents described in Section 328(7) is not a secondary detail; it is the primary shield of the republic.

Zimbabweans must see through this smoke and mirrors.

The attempt to separate “the length of time” from “term limits” is a distinction without a difference.

It is a legal fiction designed to provide a veneer of lawfulness to an act that is fundamentally at odds with the constitutional order.

If Amendment No. 3 is allowed to proceed without a referendum based on Moyo’s selective logic, and if it is allowed to benefit the current incumbent, the 2013 Constitution will have been effectively reduced to a suggestion.

We cannot allow the clever arrangement of boxes and arrows in a diagram to distract us from the clear, unequivocal text of our supreme law.

The “premise” is met the moment you seek to stay in office one day longer than the people originally agreed to—and the “consequence” is that you must either step down or face the people in a referendum.

There is no third way.

• Tendai Ruben Mbofana is a social justice advocate and writer. To directly receive his articles please join his WhatsApp Channel on: https://whatsapp.com/channel/0029VaqprWCIyPtRnKpkHe08