Tendai Ruben Mbofana
If the President were genuinely popular, the government would not be running from a national referendum; they would be sprinting toward one.
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
A government that commands the support of the people does not need to engineer constitutional loopholes; it seeks validation at the ballot box to prove its mandate.
The fervent efforts by the architects of Constitution of Zimbabwe Amendment (No. 3) Bill, or CAB3, to avoid a referendum—despite the deep national divisions their proposals have ignited—speak for themselves.
They are not acting like a government that is confident in its popular support.
They are acting like a government that knows exactly what the people would say if they were given the chance to vote.
The attempt to disguise this term extension is a transparent assault on the Constitution.
Proponents claim that by merely lengthening the presidential term from five to seven years and altering the electoral cycle, they are not adding a “third term.”
This is a desperate distraction from the plain language of Section 328(7) of the Constitution.
It states: “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 legal reality is absolute.
Any amendment that has the effect of extending the time an incumbent stays in power—regardless of whether it is framed as a cycle change or a term extension—is hit by this prohibition.
To bypass this, the government is effectively forced to amend Section 328 itself.
Under Section 328(9), this can only be done by following the procedures required for Chapter 4 of the Constitution, which mandates a two-thirds majority in Parliament and, crucially, a national referendum.
By trying to skip the referendum, they are trying to circumvent the very safety mechanisms designed to prevent the subversion of the supreme law.
Whatever the legal gymnastics, the reality on the ground is that these amendments have fractured the nation.
These divisions are visible within the ruling ZANU-PF party itself, as seen by Vice President Constantino Chiwenga’s veiled statements against the term extension.
They are openly supported by retired military generals and veterans of the liberation struggle.
Civil society, major sections of the church, students, and large sections of ordinary Zimbabweans have also voiced their opposition.
This is not a unified nation supporting an extension; it is a country on the edge.
This risk is widely believed to be a reason for the secret visit to President Mnangagwa by South Africa’s President Cyril Ramaphosa, who may fear that political instability in Zimbabwe could lead to wider regional unrest and an increased influx of immigrants.
South Africa is already facing massive anti-immigrant sentiment, with protests and attacks on supposed “illegal immigrants” in recent months.
A country already struggling with economic collapse, dysfunctional service delivery, and rising poverty cannot afford the political instability that these amendments invite.
If the proponents of CAB3 truly cared about the peace, security, and stability of Zimbabwe, they would not view a referendum as a threat to be avoided, but as a path to national cohesion.
History provides the clear precedent for this.
When the late former president Robert Mugabe sought a new constitution, he understood that national consensus was paramount.
Despite having no legal obligation to do so, he took the draft to the people.
While the 2000 version was rejected, the 2013 Constitution was overwhelmingly accepted because it had the people’s mandate.
Therefore, it is irrelevant whether those pushing CAB3 insist that the process does not legally require a national referendum.
If they truly valued national stability, unity, and peace, they would put the amendments to the people.
If a government that was not legally obligated to hold a referendum could do so for the sake of national unity, why is the current government so terrified of doing the same now?
The only logical conclusion is that they know their claims of overwhelming support for the continued stay of President Mnangagwa are a fabrication.
They know that if the people of Zimbabwe were allowed to decide the future of their own Constitution, the answer would be a resounding rejection.
Avoiding a referendum is not an act of political strategy; it is an admission of fear.
For anyone who puts the interests of Zimbabwe first, there is no wiser or more necessary course of action than putting this power back where it belongs: in the hands of the people.
- 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
The post If CAB3 proponents truly valued national stability, unity, and peace, they would put the amendments to the people appeared first on Zimbabwe Situation.