Tendai Ruben Mbofana
Yesterday’s passage of the Constitutional Amendment (No. 3) Bill, CAB3, by the House of Assembly has brought Zimbabwe to a critical constitutional precipice.
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
As the dust settles on the parliamentary vote, the gaze of the nation must now turn squarely toward the Constitutional Court.
This is the moment for our highest judicial body to stand up, defend the supreme law of the land, and protect the fragile architecture of our democracy.
After all, is that not precisely why our country’s judges take a solemn oath to “uphold and protect the Constitution and the human rights and fundamental freedoms enshrined in it”?
The Court must demand that CAB3 be subjected to a national referendum.
To be absolutely clear, this intervention is not about whether one supports or opposes a seven-year presidential and parliamentary term.
This is strictly, exclusively, and unapologetically about constitutionalism.
No one can deny or rewrite the exact text of Section 328(1) of the Constitution of Zimbabwe.
It explicitly defines a term-limit provision as “a provision of this Constitution which limits the length of time that a person may hold or occupy a public office.”
Nothing could be clearer.
A term-limit provision is not tied to any single, isolated section of the Constitution.
Rather, it encompasses any provision that dictates the “length of time that a person may hold office.”
In plain terms, a term limit can be manifested in two ways: the number of terms a person can serve, or the number of years contained within a single term.
Both are, by definition, term-limit provisions.
There are no two ways about it.
Consequently, who can logically deny the meaning and weight of Section 328(7)?
This section explicitly states that an amendment to a term-limit provision, the effect of which is to extend the length of time that a person may hold or occupy any public office, does not apply in relation to any person who held or occupied that office, or an equivalent office, at any time before the amendment.
Who could fail to understand the absolute clarity of this clause?
Any amendment to a term-limit provision—as defined under Section 328(1)—that results in extending the duration of public office falls squarely under the jurisdiction of Section 328(7).
Explained more simply, any amendment affecting the time a person occupies office, which ultimately elongates their tenure, is precisely what Section 328(7) was designed to regulate.
It matters little what semantic language or legal packaging is used to label this amendment.
Even if proponents attempt to frame CAB3 merely as “electoral cycle changes,” the underlying reality remains unchanged.
If electoral cycles are altered such that an office bearer—be it the president or a member of parliament—remains in that particular office longer, it triggers Section 328(7).
In the case of CAB3, we all know that the president and legislators currently occupy their respective offices for five years before the next election.
Under these proposed changes, they will now occupy those offices for seven years.
Can anyone honestly explain how that is not an amendment “the effect of which is to extend the length of time that a person may hold or occupy any public office”?
Therefore, the sitting incumbents are undeniably covered by the restrictions of Section 328(7).
The section unambiguously dictates that such an amendment cannot benefit “any person who held or occupied that office, or an equivalent office, at any time before the amendment.”
Who on earth, then, can legitimately claim that these changes should benefit the sitting president and current legislators?
The only lawful way to bypass this restriction is to amend Section 328(7) itself.
According to Section 328(9), amending this restrictive clause requires the exact same rigorous process used to amend Chapter 4, the Declaration of Rights.
This mandatory constitutional pathway requires two strict components: a two-thirds parliamentary majority and a binding national referendum.
So, why are we not having a national referendum?
Again, it bears repeating: this has absolutely nothing to do with whether one supports the substance of CAB3 or not.
Even those who favor a seven-year term should desire for the Constitution to be followed explicitly in implementing these changes.
Just because you want the rules followed in a soccer match does not mean you do not want your team to win.
It would be utterly perplexing if, during the ongoing 2026 World Cup, a team like Brazil preferred the rules of the game to be violated just to secure a victory.
Would that make any sense?
Even the most passionate Brazil supporters, no matter how desperately they want their team to win, would demand that victory be achieved fairly by adhering to the established rules of the game.
This is precisely when the Constitutional Court must step forward to defend and uphold the Constitution of Zimbabwe.
This is not a political debate about the merits of CAB3; it is a purely legal demand for adherence to the rules.
When the rules are respected and followed, we can all confidently declare: whoever wins, wins!
I, for one, will willingly accept the outcome once a national referendum is conducted and the people of Zimbabwe freely and fairly choose CAB3.
However, if the Constitutional Court allows this brazen violation of the country’s supreme law to proceed unchallenged, it sets a catastrophic precedent.
Adding two more years to a political term may not appear monumental to some today, and many may wonder what all this hullabaloo is about.
But if CAB3 is permitted to become law without due process, what is to stop a future constitutional amendment from extending terms or changing the electoral cycle to ten or even fifteen years without ever consulting the citizens through a referendum?
Let us remember that an armed robber does not start his criminal career by holding up a bank.
He likely begins by stealing ten cents of his mother’s change after being sent to buy bread.
Because he gets away with it, he moves on to stealing a whole dollar.
Soon, he becomes emboldened to steal from other children, eventually graduating to using a knife to threaten those who resist him.
Ultimately, he becomes a fully-fledged armed robber—breaking into homes, holding up banks, and hijacking cars.
This is the real, existential danger of allowing CAB3 to be enacted into law without a national referendum.
The true fear is not a seven-year presidential and parliamentary term itself, but how an emboldened government, having successfully bypassed the supreme law today, will abuse the Constitution tomorrow.
The Constitutional Court must act now to stop the first ten cents from being stolen.
- 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