Tendai Ruben Mbofana
The recent roadmap released by ZANU PF regarding the Constitutional Amendment (No. 3) presents a deceptively simple path forward for the nation.
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
By listing a sequence of bureaucratic steps and highlighting specific chapters that supposedly do not require a referendum, the governing party is attempting to lead the public into a narrow legal corridor.
The poster explicitly claims that because the bill does not touch Chapters 4 or 16, or Section 328, there is no need for a national vote.
On the surface, this might look like a straightforward reading of the law, but a more rigorous examination reveals a calculated attempt to bypass the sovereign will of the Zimbabwean people.
The reality is that the Constitution of Zimbabwe is a sophisticated document designed to prevent the very kind of “legal gymnastics” currently being performed.
The central issue at hand is the proposed extension of the presidential term from five to seven years, and no matter how the government tries to package it, this move triggers a constitutional checkmate that demands a referendum.
The cornerstone of this argument lies in Section 328(7), a provision specifically crafted to protect the democratic process from incumbent overreach.
This section makes it clear that any amendment to a term-limit provision which has the effect of extending the length of time a person may hold a particular office cannot benefit the person who held that office before the amendment.
In simpler terms, even if a government successfully changes the law to lengthen a presidential term, the person sitting in the chair at that moment is legally barred from enjoying that extra time.
The logic is sound and essential for stability.
It ensures that leaders do not use their current power to manufacture more power for themselves.
To understand why this applies to the current roadmap, we must look at the definition of a “term-limit provision” provided in Section 328(1).
According to Section 328(1), a term-limit provision is any provision of the Constitution which limits the length of time that a person may hold or occupy a public office.
The operative phrase here is “the length of time.”
This is a functional definition rather than a static list of section numbers.
It means that the label of “term-limit provision” is not a permanent tag attached to specific chapters but rather a description of any clause that dictates how long an official remains in power.
While Section 91 and Section 95 are the most obvious examples because they limit a president to two terms of five years each, they are not the only ones.
Any part of the Constitution that touches upon the duration of an incumbency effectively becomes a term-limit provision the moment it is amended to alter that duration.
The government strategy appears to be one of selective focus.
By pointing out that they are not amending Section 91, they hope to convince the public that they are not touching term limits.
This is a classic sleight of hand.
It does not matter which section they choose to edit.
If the end result is that the current president stays in office longer than the five-year term he was elected to serve, then they have amended a provision that affects the length of time he holds office.
By definition, that is an amendment to a term-limit provision.
Once we establish that the amendment affects the length of time in office, Section 328(7) immediately activates to block the incumbent from benefiting.
The only way for the current president to legally stay in office until 2030 or beyond through a term extension is to remove or bypass the restriction in Section 328(7) itself.
This is where the government’s “No Referendum” claim completely falls apart.
To allow an incumbent to benefit from a term extension, they would have to amend Section 328.
As the ZANU PF poster itself begrudgingly acknowledges, Section 328 is one of the protected sections of the Constitution.
Under Section 328(9), any amendment to this specific section requires a national referendum.
There is no middle ground and no secret side door.
You cannot lengthen the term for the benefit of the current office holder without confronting the hurdle of Section 328, and you cannot clear that hurdle without asking every Zimbabwean citizen to cast a ballot.
Any roadmap that suggests otherwise is not a path of law but a path of political convenience that ignores the supreme law of the land.
To illustrate how potentially any section of the Constitution can become a “term-limit provision,” we can look at sections that seem entirely unrelated to elections.
Consider Section 17, which deals with gender balance.
Under normal circumstances, this section is a constitutional mandate for the state to ensure full gender parity in all institutions and agencies of government at every level.
It cannot be defined as a “term-limit provision” by any stretch of the imagination.
However, if the government decided to amend Section 17 to state that “the president will remain in office until there is total gender balance in every sphere of Zimbabwean society,” that “innocent” section would immediately morph into a term-limit provision.
Because it would now dictate the “length of time” a person holds office based on the achievement of a specific social goal, it would fall under the definition in Section 328(1).
Consequently, Section 328(7) would apply, and the sitting president would be barred from staying in office under that new rule unless a referendum was held to change the rules of amendment.
There is no way the government can then turn around and say there is no need for a national referendum because they are not amending Chapters 4 and 16, and Section 328
This example shows that the Constitution prioritizes the effect of a law over its title.
The attempt to compartmentalize the Constitution into sections that require a referendum and those that do not is a shallow interpretation meant to pacify the public.
The Constitution is an integrated organism.
You cannot pull one thread without tensioning the entire fabric.
When the governing party claims that the bill “doesn’t touch” the protected chapters, they are being technically pedantic while ignoring the substantive legal reality.
If the goal of the amendment is to provide more time for the current leadership, then the bill is, by necessity, an attack on the spirit and letter of the term-limit protections.
The people of Zimbabwe are not merely spectators in this process.
They are the ultimate custodians of the democratic framework.
By claiming that public hearings and a simple parliamentary debate are enough to move forward, the roadmap dismisses the fundamental right of the citizenry to decide on the structure of their government.
The “chaotic” nature of the public hearings mentioned by many observers should have been a sign that the people are not convinced by the current narrative.
The Constitution was designed to withstand moments of political opportunism.
It creates a high bar for change because the founders understood that power has a natural tendency to seek its own extension.
The roadmap’s insistence on “No Referendum” is not a legal certainty but a political desire.
It is a hope that the public will not notice the contradiction between the party’s claims and the text of Section 328.
We must reject the notion that a constitutional amendment is a mere administrative task to be handled by a committee report and a ministerial speech.
If the “length of time” for a public office is being changed, the people must be consulted at the ballot box.
This is not about whether one supports the current administration or not.
It is about whether we respect the rules that govern us all.
If we allow the definition of a term-limit provision to be narrowed down to only what the government finds convenient, we render the entire Constitution useless.
The supreme law is clear and has ways of stopping opportunists in their tracks.
It demands that the sovereign voice of the people be heard whenever the basic timeline of power is altered.
The bottom line is that the government is trying to play a game of legal shadows.
They are highlighting what they aren’t changing to hide the massive implications of what they are changing.
No amount of branding or structured roadmaps can change the fact that the people have a right to a referendum.
If the president is to stay longer, regardless of the specific sections amended, constitution says he cannot benefit unless the people say so through a direct vote.
Any other path is a violation of the national trust.
Let us not be fooled by posters that promise an easy way out.
The law of the land is not a suggestion.
It is a command that places the power in the hands of the voters, not the politicians.
If there is to be an extension of the term, there must be a referendum.
There is no avoiding this fact, no matter what legal gymnastics are played.
- 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