Zanu PF can legally extend Mnangagwa’s term without a referendum: Prof Moyo 

As debate intensifies over how President Emmerson Mnangagwa could remain in power or politically relevant up to 2030, political commentator Professor Jonathan Moyo argues the ruling party could legally extend Mnangagwa’s current term without a referendum, because only amendments to term-limit provisions require one, while changing the length of a term does not.

According to Prof Moyo, this precedent means Zanu PF can lawfully amend section 95(2)(b) of the Constitution by changing the president’s ‘term length’ from five to seven years, extending it, for example, through a two-thirds parliamentary majority so President Mnangagwa can reach their “Vision 2030” agenda.

Prof Moyo on his X page argued that the “term‑limit” clause (Section 91 (2)) limits the number of terms a person may serve, not the duration of each term and adjusting the duration (Section 95 (2)(b)) can be done by a two‑thirds parliamentary majority (Section 328 (5)).

Moyo’s main argument rests on the difference between “term limits” and “term lengths.” He noted that criticism from opposition politicians such as David  Coltart on term limits is mistaken because they mix up two different parts of the constitution.

Quoting sections 328 (6),(7), (8) and (9) of the constitution on his X page, Coltart had written  extending the president’s term would require two national referendums, as the constitution clause on term limits caps how long a person can stay in office, so any extension must be voted for by people in a referendum

“The term limit provisions are specially protected as are provisions in Chapter 4 (fundamental rights) and 16 (land provisions). The wording of 328(7) is critical – “the effect of which is to extend” makes it clear that even if another term isn’t sought (that is, just an extension of a few years) any such constitutional amendment must go beyond a mere two thirds majority and must have two referenda where it involves an incumbent,” Coltart said.

“It is simply disingenuous for anyone to suggest that the Zanu PF resolution in Bulawayo last year calling for an extension of President Mnangagwa’s term, or a further term of office, can lawfully circumvent the two referenda provision.”

However, Prof Moyo said Coltart had confused the two, explaining that a term limit restricts how many times a person can hold office, currently two terms for a president, while a term length simply defines how long each term lasts, such as five years.

Prof Moyo pointed to the 2021 Constitutional Court decision in Marx Mupungu versus  Minister of Justice as the key precedent, where it ruled term‑limit provisions fixed caps on how many terms an individual may hold a post, that is a president may serve only two terms and that requires a referendum to change but the length of a single term for an office, that is a five‑year presidential term can be altered by Parliament alone.

“Applied to section 95(2)(b), the five-year presidential term of office is inherently variable: It ‘extends until’ events like resignation, removal, or parliamentary dissolution, mirroring the contingent logic in the Mupungu case. This provision outlines the office’s maximum framework (which is five years); it is not a personal cap on the President as a ‘public officer,’” said Prof Moyo.

“The Constitution’s sole presidential term limit on the officeholder lies in section 91(2)’s two-term bar, which would remain untouched by a term length amendment to section 95(2)(b).”

Because Zanu PF’s October 2024 “Resolution Number 1” concluded in its congress in Bulawayo seeks to amend section 95 (2)(b) –  the clause that sets the presidential term at five years, Prof Moyo claimed the move is fully permissible under the constitution.

Prof Moyo said Parliament could simply pass a bill with a two‑thirds majority in both houses, extending the term to, say, seven years, and the president could stay in office until 2030. No referendum would be needed.

“Amending Section 95(2)(b) to seven years, for instance, would simply recalibrate this flexible duration, enabling the extension to 2030 via a two-thirds vote in each House in Parliament -free from the “dictates” of Sections 328(6)– (9),” he said.

Prof Moyo said several countries, such as Guinea and Ireland, already have seven-year presidential terms without violating democratic principles, suggesting Zimbabwe could follow suit.

“If a president resigns after two years, his or her successor serves only the remaining three, not a full five. This underlines the office’s contingent nature. The true ‘term of officer’ limit appears solely in Section 91(2), which caps re-eligibility of incumbents at two terms (with three or more years counting as a full term) but imposes no upper ceiling on term duration -allowing for four, five, seven, or more years as may be rationally and democratically justifiable,” he said.

“Recent examples abound: Guinea just adopted a seven-year presidential term on 21 September 2025, while Ireland has for decades maintained a seven-year presidential term capped at two terms.”

Political analyst, Mxolisi Ncube, said these were signs of creeping authoritarianism, where the ruling party is testing constitutional loopholes to prolong its stay in power and called for vigilance

“The practical impact of this is if Zanu PF’s resolution passes, President Mnangagwa could remain in office longer without a public vote, provided the two‑term limit is not breached. Any amendment extending Mnangagwa’s current term should be subject to broad public consultation,” he said.

Meanwhile, a comparative constitutional and international law scholar Dr Justice Mavedzenge outlined another potential political manoeuvre where President Mnangagwa could resign before completing three years of his current term, triggering the provisions of Sections 100 and 101 of the Constitution, which allow a vice president to act as president until Zanu PF nominates a replacement to complete the term.

He said this constitutional loophole can extend President Mnangagwa’s stay in power beyond 2028 without formally amending the Constitution.

Speaking during one of CITE’s This Morning Asakhe X Space discussion titled “Vision 2030 or Power Extension: Decoding Zanu PF Endorsements,” Dr Mavedzenge said certain provisions in Zimbabwe’s Constitution could be strategically interpreted to allow President Mnangagwa to remain politically relevant up to 2030.

“A constitution is only powerful to the extent that its owners, the citizens, know about it,” said Dr Mavedzenge.

“I wrote about this issue on my blog, trying to unpack what Zanu PF Harare provincial chairperson (Godwills Masimirembwa) meant when he said Zanu PF will achieve Vision 2030 without a national referendum. I grappled with that because I wanted to find out what it is. Is he just mad or is he on to something? And I found something.”

Dr Mavedzenge said the key lies in Sections 91, 100 and 101 of the Constitution, which together define how presidential terms are measured and what happens when a president leaves office.

“The Constitution says that a full term for the president is anything from three years and above. If a president serves less than three years, that period is not considered a full term,” he explained.
“If President Mnangagwa were to serve only up to around September 2026, that would not count as a full term, making him constitutionally eligible to contest again.”

Dr Mavedzenge said if the president were to resign before completing three years of his current term, triggering the provisions of Sections 100 and 101, that allows a vice president to act as president until Zanu PF nominates a replacement to complete the term.

“I imagine what the party could potentially do is engage Section 101 and 100, allowing one of the vice presidents to act as president while the party nominates a substantive replacement to serve out the remainder,” he said.
“When I first wrote this, it sounded crazy, and my colleagues said it was risky and impossible. But the more I look at what is happening in Zanu PF today, the more I feel I might be correct.”

He said recent political developments, including speculation about a reconfiguration of the vice presidency, suggest possible preparations for such a scenario.

“When you look at this idea of trying to reconstitute the presidency, bringing in figures like (businessman Kuda) Tagwirei as potential vice presidents and the pushback against Vice President Constantino Chiwenga, I get the sense that what the 2030 campaigners are doing is to also try and reconfigure the office of the vice president,” he noted.

Dr Mavedzenge added this could make it possible for President Mnangagwa to temporarily leave office between September 2026 and return in 2028 ahead of the next election, with a temporary placeholder in between.

“In order to make it a possibility that President Mnangagwa can have the option of temporarily leaving the office between September 2026 and coming back in September 2028 when the next elections are due and Zanu PF will have a temporary placeholder.”

Dr Mavedzenge acknowledged that such a move would be politically risky, as power vacuums often shift loyalties but said it was still a scenario worth considering seriously.

Of course, we have to accept that that is risky because in politics, loyalties shift. But I want us to think about that as well as a possibility. I’m not saying and I’m still not even myself convinced that is a viable way of achieving 2030.  But it is important, I emphasize to think about that and also say if we are going to work to defend our constitution.”

He further warned Zimbabwe’s constitutional protections remain vulnerable because the institutions meant to uphold them, the judiciary, civil society and opposition, are weak or compromised.

“A good constitutional text such as what we have must be supported by an independent judiciary, which I think there are doubts about the independence of the Zimbabwean judiciary, especially when it comes to deciding on politically sensitive cases. The second is that a good constitution such as ours needs to be supported by a strong civil society. And I think our civil society at the moment is quite in a very difficult situation,” he said.

“Civic space or democratic space has been closed, but also inadequate resources. But also, I think there have been attempts to capture civil society itself. So we currently have a very weak civil society. You also have to have a very strong opposition…But the fact is we don’t have a strong opposition.

Dr Mavedzenge urged citizens to focus not only on political outcomes but on the “infrastructure of democracy” that sustains constitutionalism.

“Without the infrastructure of a strong opposition, a strong civil society, independent courts, the constitution is meaningless. So we have to pay attention to the infrastructure. Democracy is a good thing, but democracy only works if the infrastructure to defend it is in place,” he said.