Tendai Ruben Mbofana
The recent reports in the national media highlighting ZANU-PF warnings to so-called rebels over the 2030 Bill paint a picture of a party at war with its own conscience.
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
According to the headlines, the leadership is vowing to expel any member who does not fall in line with the contentious Constitutional Amendment (No. 3) Bill.
This heavy-handed approach to party discipline is not only a sign of growing internal insecurity but also a fundamental misrepresentation of what the party membership actually agreed to during its recent annual conferences.
When the facts are laid bare, it becomes clear that ZANU-PF members are under no obligation whatsoever to support these specific constitutional amendments.
The leadership has moved the goalposts so significantly that the current Bill no longer represents the will of the party base, but rather a narrow agenda smuggled in under the guise of loyalty.
To understand this betrayal, one must look at the origin of the current political trajectory.
During the 2024 and 2025 annual people’s conferences, a very specific resolution was passed.
Regardless of the debates surrounding the transparency or representative nature of those gatherings, the outcome was singular in its focus.
This was the infamous Resolution No. 1, which sought to ensure that President Emmerson Mnangagwa remains in power beyond the 2028 expiry of his current term, extending his tenure to 2030.
In the internal logic of ZANU-PF, this resolution became the holy grail of party loyalty.
Members were told that supporting this extension was a mandate from the majority and that any deviation would be viewed as a betrayal of the party’s collective vision.
However, the Constitutional Amendment (No. 3) Bill currently being pushed by the leadership is a far cry from that original mandate.
It is not a simple translation of Resolution No. 1 into law.
Instead, the Bill has morphed into a complex cocktail of constitutional amendments that have absolutely nothing to do with the agreed-upon extension of the presidential term.
The Bill also replaces direct presidential elections with a parliamentary selection process and dissolves the Zimbabwe Gender Commission.
The legislation repeals Section 281(2) to remove the ban on traditional leaders from being members of political parties or participating in partisan politics.
It shifts control of the voters’ roll from the electoral commission to the Registrar-General and grants the President authority to appoint ten additional senators.
The legislation establishes a new Delimitation Commission to redraw electoral boundaries and applies these changes to the current administration.
By including these unrelated and unvetted provisions, the ZANU-PF leadership has effectively poisoned the well.
The situation can be compared to a medical scenario where a doctor prescribes Vitamin C to a patient to improve their health.
The patient may be willing and even obligated to take the vitamin for their well-being.
However, if that Vitamin C is then dissolved into a glass of poisoned water, no sane person would expect the patient to drink it.
You cannot be forced to consume something lethal just because it contains a small amount of what was originally prescribed.
In this case, the extension of the President’s term to 2030 is the Vitamin C, but the surrounding amendments are the poison that renders the entire Bill unacceptable.
The betrayal felt by the party membership is not just theoretical; it is already manifesting in public dissent from the most unexpected quarters.
A clear sign of this internal fracture is the recent social media post by Tatenda Mavetera, the ZANU-PF Member of Parliament for Chikomba West and Minister of ICT.
As a member of the Mashonaland East Provincial Coordinating Committee, Mavetera is a high-ranking official who would normally be expected to toe the party line without question.
Yet, she has voiced her opposition to the proposed scrapping of the Zimbabwe Gender Commission—a view she says is shared by other senior female party leaders.
Their resistance is a logical response to a leadership that is trying to sneak through radical changes that were never discussed, debated, or agreed upon at the party’s conferences.
If a government minister and provincial leader feels the need to speak out against the “smuggling” of amendments, then the ordinary party member has every right to feel even more aggrieved.
The leadership’s attempt to use the threat of expulsion to force support for this Bill is a form of political extortion.
They are holding the original Resolution No. 1 over the heads of members to compel them into accepting a host of other changes that diminish the rights of citizens and the independence of national commissions.
This is a breach of the social contract between the party hierarchy and its supporters.
Furthermore, the Bill’s proposal to scrap direct presidential elections is a direct assault on the power of the ordinary ZANU-PF member.
In a direct election, every member has a voice in who leads the nation.
By transferring that power to Parliament—where the party currently wields a two-thirds majority—the leadership is centralizing power and cutting the average member out of the decision-making process.
Why should a party member in a rural district support an amendment that effectively silences their individual vote in favor of a parliamentary caucus?
This was never part of the discussion regarding 2030, and it represents a massive departure from the democratic rhetoric the party often employs.
The ZANU-PF leadership must be reminded that loyalty is a two-way street.
You cannot demand absolute obedience from your followers while simultaneously deceiving them by altering the terms of your agreement.
The members who are currently being labeled as “rebels” are, in many ways, the ones being most faithful to the actual resolutions passed by the conferences.
They agreed to one thing, and they are now being forced to sign off on something entirely different and far more dangerous.
The stance taken by Mavetera and others should serve as a wake-up call for the entire party.
It is a signal that the “cocktail” of amendments is unpalatable and lacks the legitimacy of a true party mandate.
ZANU-PF members across the country should not be intimidated by threats of disciplinary action or expulsion.
They have a moral and political right to reject a Bill that betrays the very resolutions they were told to uphold.
When the leadership chooses to smuggle in unapproved constitutional changes, they forfeit the right to demand uniform support.
The “rebels” are not those who resist this Bill; the real rebellion was committed by the leadership when they chose to ignore the party’s own internal democracy in favor of a clandestine legislative agenda.
- 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 ZANU-PF members are under no obligation to support constitutional amendments as they were betrayed by their party appeared first on Zimbabwe Situation.