Tendai Ruben Mbofana
With the signing into law of the Constitution of Zimbabwe Amendment (No. 3) Act of 2026, the country has officially entered a deeply troubling constitutional reality.
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
In the wake of its enactment, a sophisticated but entirely hollow revisionist narrative has emerged to legitimize what is, by all objective standards, an unmistakable power grab.
Defenders of the Act confidently assert that because the newly minted seven-year term “runs with the life of Parliament, not with any individual,” the amendment somehow managed to glide past the strict defensive guardrails of the 2013 Constitution.
By pointing to the fact that this lengthening of terms was applied broadly to both the legislative and executive branches as a collective block, they claim there was simply nothing to trigger a national referendum.
This post-facto justification is a masterclass in legal smoke and mirrors—an exercise in structural deception that attempts to sanitize a profound constitutional violation after the deed has already been done.
To understand the fallacy of this narrative, one must look directly at the specific architecture of Section 328(7), a clause designed precisely to prevent this exact scenario.
This defensive barrier was never a passive paragraph to be neatly bypassed by clever drafting; it was the ultimate democratic shield against self-perpetuating power.
Section 328(7) explicitly mandates that any amendment that extends a term limit or modifies term-limit provisions cannot benefit any incumbent who held office before the amendment took effect.
The revisionist rhetoric now attempts to exploit a bizarre semantic loophole, arguing that because the Act simultaneously altered the lifespan of both Parliament and the presidency, it was an overarching systemic restructuring rather than a targeted extension of executive tenure.
Yet, by applying this new seven-year timeline to the current governance cycle, the sitting executive’s time in power was automatically prolonged by two years.
To suggest that an extension of the system’s life does not directly benefit the individuals who were already occupying those seats defies basic logic and treats the constitutional text as a meaningless formality.
The absolute proof that the architects of this law knew their institutional defense was a lie remains permanently etched within the very text of the legislation they passed.
Under Clause 4 of the Amendment Act, the drafters explicitly inserted the phrase: “Notwithstanding section 328(7), subsection (2)(b) shall apply to the continuation in office of the President.”
This single line entirely demolishes the ongoing claims that there was “nothing to trigger.”
If extending the life of Parliament and the presidency as a collective block truly placed the amendment outside the jurisdiction of Section 328(7), there would have been absolutely no legal necessity to include a “notwithstanding” clause specifically designed to override it.
The inclusion of this phrase is a permanent confession in black and white.
It proves that the state fully recognized Section 328(7) as a direct, binding legal barrier to their ambitions and consciously chose to use raw legislative power to cut through it, rather than seeking the mandatory mandate of a national referendum.
By attempting to hide behind the fact that the lengthening of terms applied to both branches of government, the proponents of Amendment No. 3 are trying to create a distinction where none exists in the eyes of constitutional law.
A term limit is a restriction on power over time.
Whether that restriction is modified for one office or wrapped in a larger package that alters the lifespan of the entire legislature, the material effect remains identical: the current rulers have successfully granted themselves more time in office than the electorate originally authorized.
Moving the goalposts for the entire stadium does not make it a different game.
By stretching the current governance cycle and explicitly writing a clause to ignore the core restrictions of Section 328, the enactment of this amendment accomplished precisely what the 2013 Constitution was written to prevent.
It effectively extended executive and legislative tenure without a direct, unmediated vote from the citizens of Zimbabwe.
It stands as a completed, systematic dismantling of constitutional safeguards under the guise of institutional reform.
- Advertise your business, products, or services on my WhatsApp Channel with over 10k followers. For bookings, contact me on WhatsApp: +263 715 667 700 or Email: mbofana.tendairuben73@gmail.com