No amount of purported “support” for Amendment No 3 on ZBC can negate the need for a referendum

Ever since the gazetting of the Constitutional Amendment (No 3) Bill by the Minister of Legal Affairs Ziyambi Ziyambi, the state-controlled media apparatus has shifted into an aggressive and relentless gear.

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

We are witnessing a propaganda campaign in full throttle, meticulously designed to create an illusion of overwhelming national consensus.

Day after day, the Zimbabwe Broadcasting Corporation (ZBC) treats the nation to a choreographed spectacle of interviews from the furthest corners of the country.

In these segments, ZANU-PF officials, traditional leaders, and manufactured supporters repeat a script that feels as though it was written in a single boardroom and distributed as a mandatory talking point.

They speak of the need for “continuity,” the desire for the president to “finish his projects,” and the supposed necessity of “stability” to avoid the allegedly disruptive nature of frequent elections.

This narrative is as tired as it is transparent.

It frames the constitutional amendment process not as a legal necessity but as a popularity contest, suggesting that if enough people dance for the cameras or shout slogans in a marketplace, the supreme law of the land should simply bend to their will.

However, beneath this veneer of staged enthusiasm lies a fundamental truth that the state machinery is desperately trying to bury.

The Constitution of Zimbabwe is not a document that can be subverted by a television montage or a series of well-timed rallies.

Its survival and its authority do not depend on how many people the ZBC can find to pledge their undying support for Amendment No 3.

In the realm of constitutional law, the number of supporters means absolutely nothing if the procedure followed is an affront to the document itself.

Even if the state were to produce footage of fifteen million citizens uniformly demanding these changes, that collective voice would hold zero legal weight unless it were expressed through the specific, mandatory mechanism provided by the law.

That mechanism is a national referendum.

This is the only arena where the views of the people truly matter in a way that the law recognizes.

​To understand why this is the case, one must look at the nature of the Constitution itself.

Unlike ordinary acts of parliament or general laws that are often interpreted strictly by their literal wording, a constitution is a living document.

It is interpreted through its intent, its spirit, its letter, and, most crucially, its effect.

It was intentionally written in relatively simple language so that the average citizen could grasp its protections.

It was never meant to be a playground for legal gymnastics or semantic trickery.

When we deal with the proposed extension of the presidential term from five to seven years, the framing used by the government is irrelevant.

They may attempt to package it as a mere adjustment of the electoral cycle or a technical change to how intervals are calculated.

They may claim they are not adding more terms but simply lengthening the existing ones.

These are nothing more than linguistic distractions designed to bypass the protective barriers built into the 2013 charter.

The law is remarkably clear on this point.

Section 328(1) of the Constitution provides the definition of a “term-limit provision.”

Notably, it does not point to one specific section or a narrow set of numbers.

Instead, it defines a term-limit provision as any provision of the Constitution which limits the length of time a person may hold or occupy a public office.

This definition is exhaustive and functionally focused.

It does not matter where in the document the provision sits or what label the government attaches to it.

If the provision has anything to do with the duration of stay in a public office, it is a term-limit provision. Period.

Therefore, any amendment that seeks to change the presidential term from five years to seven years is, by definition, an amendment to a term-limit provision.

It is an attempt to alter the length of time a person may occupy the highest office in the land.

This brings us to the most significant hurdle that the proponents of Amendment No 3 are pretending does not exist.

In Shona street lingo, we call this “kunyapera kuzungaira”—the act of feigning ignorance or wandering aimlessly to avoid a clear reality.

Section 328(7) of the Constitution was specifically crafted to prevent the very scenario we are currently witnessing.

It states that 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 at any time before the amendment.

The key word here is “effect.”

In legal terms, the effect is the end result.

The law does not ask what the politicians intended or what the ZBC reporters claimed.

It asks a singular, objective question.

What is the end result of this amendment?

If the end result is that the current president stays in office longer than the rules allowed when he took his oath, then he cannot constitutionally benefit from that change.

​The logic of the Constitution is airtight.

It was designed to ensure that no sitting leader could “write themselves” more time in office.

To remove this obstacle, the government would have to do more than just pass a simple bill through a compliant parliament.

They would have to amend Section 328 itself to remove or alter the protections of subsection 7.

However, the framers of the Constitution anticipated this move as well.

Section 328(9) states clearly that Section 328 can only be amended as if it were contained in Chapter 4.

Chapter 4 is the Declaration of Rights, the heart of the Constitution that protects the fundamental liberties of every Zimbabwean.

By linking Section 328 to the Declaration of Rights, the Constitution ensures that these provisions are “entrenched.”

They cannot be changed by a two-thirds majority in Parliament alone.

They require a two-thirds majority followed by a national referendum.

This is where the state’s current campaign falls apart.

No matter how many rallies are held and no matter how many interviews are aired, the constitutional demand for a referendum remains immovable.

If the “effect” of Amendment No 3 is that the current incumbent gains two extra years in each term, the law classifies this as an extension of tenure that requires the direct consent of the people through a formal ballot.

One cannot deny in all sincerity that whether we call it a change in the electoral cycle or a lengthening of the term, the president would remain in office for a longer period.

Since that is the undeniable end result, the path to achieving it must go through the people, not around them.

The government’s attempt to use state media to manufacture “support” is a tacit admission that they are uncomfortable with the actual legal requirements.

If they were confident in the constitutionality of their path, they would not need to spend every evening on the news trying to convince the public that the law doesn’t mean what it says.

They are attempting to substitute the rule of law with the rule of the mob, hoping that if enough noise is made, the constitutional barriers will simply be forgotten.

But the Constitution is not a suggestion.

It is the supreme law.

It is the shield that protects the republic from the whims of those in power.

Ultimately, the decision on whether the current president can benefit from an extended term belongs to the citizens of Zimbabwe in a polling booth, not to a group of coached supporters on a television screen.

The Constitution demands a referendum because it recognizes that the power to govern is a temporary grant from the people, governed by strict limits.

Any attempt to bypass these limits through legal gymnastics or media propaganda is an attack on the very foundation of our democracy.

We must remain vigilant and remind those in power that no amount of choreographed support can replace the constitutional necessity of a national referendum.

The law is clear, the effect is obvious, and the mandate of the people is not something that can be faked for the cameras.

• 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