Tendai Ruben Mbofana
I do not think I have ever come across a more preposterous reason for not only a leader to remain in power but also for the amendment of a sacrosanct document such as the supreme law of the land.
Let us remember that the key purpose of a country’s constitution, particularly one founded on democratic principles, is to serve as the supreme legal framework that outlines the principles, structures, and functions of government while protecting the rights and freedoms of its citizens.
As a framework that defines what the country believes in and is founded on, a constitution should never be amended frivolously, as that has the potential to alter the very basis on which the nation is established.
Amending a constitution without a legitimate and well-considered justification is akin to Christians amending the Bible.
Such an act would effectively change the very essence of what Christianity stands for and is premised upon.
To directly receive articles from Tendai Ruben Mbofana, please join his WhatsApp Channel on: https://whatsapp.com/channel/0029VaqprWCIyPtRnKpkHe08
Thus, the decision to amend a constitution should be guided by a genuine desire to strengthen its core values—such as human rights, democratic principles, and the rule of law.
That is why, in the United States, despite its own challenges and questionable past, the Constitution has been amended only 27 times in the country’s 249 years of existence.
Most of these amendments were aimed at granting more rights to the people and limiting the powers of the president.
Notable examples include the imposition of a two-term limit on the presidency, as well as other changes that expanded citizens’ rights and reinforced democracy.
These include the abolition of slavery through the 13th Amendment, the granting of voting rights to women via the 19th Amendment, and the Voting Rights Act of 1965, which further protected citizens from discriminatory electoral practices.
Seldom, at least in democratic countries, do we witness constitutions being amended to consolidate a leader’s power.
Such actions are typically confined to authoritarian regimes.
Sadly, this is precisely what we are witnessing in Zimbabwe.
In just 12 years since the adoption of the current Constitution in 2013, it has already been amended twice.
Both amendments were not focused on enhancing citizens’ rights or strengthening democracy but rather on consolidating the president’s grip on power.
For instance, the Constitution of Zimbabwe Amendment (No. 1) Act of 2017 altered the appointment process for the Chief Justice, Deputy Chief Justice, and Judge President of the High Court—granting the president greater control over the judiciary.
Similarly, the Constitution of Zimbabwe Amendment (No. 2) Act of 2021 introduced changes such as extending the tenure of senior judges and removing the running mate clause for presidential elections.
These were clearly intended to maintain the president’s dominance by keeping sympathetic judges in place and removing the prospect of an independent and elected vice president who could challenge his authority.
Now, some sections of the ruling ZANU-PF party are advocating for a third amendment to the Constitution, this time to allow the president to remain in office beyond the current two five-year terms.
This proposal blatantly contravenes the spirit of the Constitution, which is designed to safeguard democracy by preventing any leader from consolidating power indefinitely—a key step in averting authoritarian rule or dictatorship.
Limiting presidential terms ensures regular leadership transitions, enabling new ideas, policies, and approaches to governance.
Term limits reinforce the principle that political power is temporary and held in trust for the people, fostering accountability and respect for democratic norms.
A leader with limited time in office is less likely to manipulate institutions or engage in corrupt practices to extend their rule.
Regular leadership transitions also help prevent political crises and conflicts over succession, contributing to a stable political environment.
Long-serving leaders often become synonymous with the state, undermining institutional governance.
In other words, term limits prevent the development of personality-based rule.
Moreover, term limits create opportunities for other leaders and political parties to participate in governance, fostering a vibrant and competitive political system.
Who would not want these benefits for their country?
Indeed, presidential term limits are among the greatest guarantees of a nation’s development.
Yet, ZANU-PF, with the assistance of some compromised opposition elements, seeks to dismantle these constitutional safeguards for a prosperous and democratic Zimbabwe.
As mentioned earlier, the justification provided for extending President Mnangagwa’s term of office is laughable—if not outright insane.
Supporters of the proposal argue that allowing Mnangagwa to remain in power beyond 2028 would enable him to see through his “Vision 2030.”
Is this the reason Mnangagwa crafted this mantra of achieving an “upper middle-income economy by 2030”?
Was it merely a pretext to justify clinging to power beyond his legal term?
Even more concerning is the implication of this argument: Are we to believe that there is no one else, even within ZANU-PF, capable of seeing through “Vision 2030”?
In other words, without Mnangagwa, there will be no “Vision 2030.”
This notion is deeply unsettling on two levels.
First, it suggests that Zimbabwe has no other individual capable of governing the country besides Mnangagwa.
Second, it implies that Mnangagwa—who has presided over the country’s further descent into economic turmoil—is the best leader that Zimbabwe and ZANU-PF can offer.
Just writing this sends shivers down my spine; it is a chilling thought.
If Mnangagwa is indeed the only one capable of realizing “Vision 2030,” what happens to this “vision” if, hypothetically, he were to pass away today?
Does this mean ZANU-PF cannot produce another leader capable of delivering “Vision 2030”?
Would “Vision 2030” die along with Mnangagwa?
Such a proposition is absurd.
What kind of country or ruling party lacks leaders who can continue government policies and programs initiated by another?
Continuity is a vital component of any functional nation.
Is Zimbabwe, then, not a functional nation?
This appears to be nothing more than a feeble excuse to manipulate the nation into accepting Mnangagwa’s insatiable lust for power.
Frankly, I do not believe that Zimbabwe—or even ZANU-PF—lacks competent leaders who can carry forward “Vision 2030.”
In fact, both the country and the ruling party have numerous capable leaders who far surpass Mnangagwa in competence and vision.
Let us not forget that the only reason Mnangagwa occupies the presidency today is due to the machinations of his now-estranged deputy, Constantino Chiwenga.
As Commander of the Zimbabwe Defence Forces (ZDF), Chiwenga imposed Mnangagwa on the nation following the November 2017 military coup that ousted Robert Mugabe.
It is then ironic that this push for Mnangagwa’s extended term in office is specifically targeted at preventing Chiwenga from taking over!
If the selection of Zimbabwe’s leader had been based purely on merit, Mnangagwa would never have been president.
Had we chosen a leader on merit, Zimbabwe would likely still be “the jewel of Africa” today.
In conclusion, Zimbabwe cannot afford to tamper with a sacrosanct document like the supreme law of the land—especially not to consolidate the power of one individual.
Even if Mnangagwa were the most exceptional leader to have ever lived, the principles of leadership renewal and the constitutional limitations of power are essential cornerstones for any nation’s development and prosperity.
Zimbabweans from all walks of life must resist this reckless and misguided push to extend Mnangagwa’s term of office beyond 2028.
In fact, given his failure to govern effectively, he would be better advised to resign even before 2028.
- Tendai Ruben Mbofana is a social justice advocate and writer. Please feel free to WhatsApp or Call: +263715667700 | +263782283975, or email: mbofana.tendairuben73@gmail.com, or visit website: https://mbofanatendairuben.news.blog/
Wow.. will Mnangagwa even live to 2030? Statistically, I’m not sure.
We can’t have Chiwenga take control. Not a third ZANU-PF leader, my feeling is that Zimbabwe cannot heal or grow as a nation until the government changes… If it takes a coup d’etat, So be it..
Loved your analysis, from New Zealand.