Signed. Sealed. Delivered. If something is working, well, change it? This is the stance of ZANU PF as it supports the extension of 83-year-old President Emmerson Mnangagwa’s term.

The constitutional amendments recently signed into law and what they change.

In June, the president signed into law a bill that allows him to extend his term, which was to end in 2028, to 2030.

Both houses of parliament passed this controversial bill, and it was not sent to a public referendum, much to the chagrin of the opposition and citizens.

So, what was really changed in the constitution?

• The president’s term in office would be changed to 7 years, from the original 5 years, with a maximum of two terms per president.
• The people would no longer vote for their president; instead, they would vote for members of parliament who would then vote for the president.
• The president would be able to appoint judges. The judges would no longer be impartial and could belong to the political party of their choosing.
• The Zimbabwe Electoral Commission would transfer its functions of voter registration to the Registrar General’s office. The Zimbabwe Electoral Delimitation Commission would take over the delimitation of wards, constituencies and other electoral boundaries.
• The Defence Forces would no longer uphold the constitution; instead, they would be required to act in accordance with the constitution.
• The ability of the president to appoint ten more senators.
• The Gender Commission was to be merged with the Human Rights Commission, but this proposal faced severe backlash and was withdrawn.
• It was also proposed that traditional leaders be allowed to participate in partisan politics, but this was shot down. It was emphasised that these leaders must remain politically neutral.

Since Zimbabwe gained independence in 1980, ZANU PF has been the ruling party, previously led by the Late Robert Mugabe. Mugabe ruled the country with an iron fist, refusing to leave office for 37 years. During his reign, the country’s economy suffered severely due to extreme inflation; its currency was extremely weakened, there was a high rate of poverty, poor education systems and white settlers were chased away, and their property destroyed or looted. The country had a poor relationship with the international community, but Mugabe was unmoved.

Mnangagwa was a close ally of Mugabe’s and became Vice President in 2014 until 2017, when he was fired to pave the way for Mugabe’s wife, Grace, to succeed him. This move humiliated the former friend, and Mnangagwa did not take it lightly.  He staged a military coup in 2017 and was elected in 2018. There was some optimism that the new president would rescue the country and abide by the constitution, but this was merely a long, hopeful dream.

Arguments presented by ZANU PF and the government

ZANU PF defended the move to increase the president’s term, saying the president needs more time to complete his long-term economic and political agendas. They say the move is meant to reduce costly and divisive election campaigns. Supporters also insist that the extended term would ensure economic stability, creating a more predictable environment for investment.

Candidates from smaller ethnic communities would be able to get national leadership positions because there would be parliamentary consensus.

The proponents of these amendments insist that anyone opposing them does not want progress.

However, murmurs from the opposition and the public signal that the extension is a way of ensuring a smooth transition of power within the elitist political party.

Implications of allowing future presidents to be elected by Parliament

The amendments are a clear threat to democracy. Zimbabweans fought for freedom; freedom to vote, to rule their country, to own land, among other things. Now this freedom is being taken away from them. 17 million citizens, with an estimated 6,619,690 voters as of 2023, will lose their right to vote, a right they have had since 1990. There is absolutely no guarantee that the members of parliament elected will vote for a president without coercion, be it financial or forceful.

ZANU PF has the majority seats in parliament, and with the new amendments, the president will be allowed to add 10 new members of the Senate. This shows that the parliamentary vote could always be in favour of the president, and any (contentious) bill that is presented before parliament and the Senate would end up being passed.

The constitutional process through which the amendments were adopted

In 2013, the country adopted a new constitution that limited the president’s term to five years with a maximum of two terms. Any need to increase the term limit would require a public referendum, and the sitting president would not benefit from it unless the public allows it in a second referendum.

Mnangagwa, the once self-declared ‘constitutionalist’, bypassed this requirement by getting more than two-thirds of parliament to assent to the amendments popularly known as CAB3. There were public hearings held in all of the country’s provinces, and the government claimed a majority support for the bill. However, during these hearings, most people opposed to the bill were not allowed to speak. Rights groups protested that these hearings were flawed because of intimidation, threats and violence.

The National Assembly then voted for the bill on 18 June 2026 with 216 in favour and 42 opposed. Some Members of Parliament were reportedly ‘financially motivated’ to vote for the bill. The bill was then sent to the Senate, which added its own six amendments and passed it with a whopping 74 in favour and just 4 opposed.

The Senate sent the bill back, and President Mnangagwa recalled parliament from recess, where the National Assembly then voted openly and not by secret ballot, which would have offered more privacy and security. Making it an open ballot election was seen as subtle coercion to keep opposing MPs in check because few would want to oppose it and face possible intimidation.

The bill passed and was signed into law by President Mnangagwa on 07 July 2026.

Concerns raised by constitutional experts and civil society.

Constitutional experts, opposition parties and civil society organisations are against these constitutional amendments and are now seeking legal assistance to have them withdrawn. They say that the wording in the amendments, for the term extension, for example, allows for the term limit to be changed in the future. This will not require a public referendum; instead, parliament will have the power to extend a president’s tenure.

Opponents argue that power will be concentrated in the hands of the political elite.

The Zimbabwe Council of Churches has called the bill morally indefensible.

Makomborero Haruzivishe, the spokesperson for the opposition, said, “President Mnangagwa has signed into law a measure that removes the people’s direct right to elect their president and extends his own term by two years. This is not a technical reform. It is a deliberate stripping away of popular sovereignty. From CDF’s perspective, the worry is real because the very document that was supposed to protect us from indefinite rule has been turned into a tool for entrenching it.”

Lovemore Madhuku, a leader of the National Constitutional Assembly, went to the Constitutional Court to stop the amendment process, but this was thrown out. Opponents still insist that these laws are unconstitutional because the Constitution firmly states that any amendments would have to go through a public referendum. Critics of the government are being targeted and attacked.

Tendai Biti, a leader of the Opposition and former Finance Minister, has suffered such attacks and has had his offices broken into.

“You are going to see serious, multiple litigations, particularly in the Constitutional Court.  You are going to see serious activities on the ground with people demonstrating… Zimbabwe enters into another phase of conflict,” said Tendai.

War veterans and other petitioners have gone to the Constitutional Court to counter the amendments. Their main argument is that a public referendum is needed before a president’s term limit can be changed. The case is still in court, and there is anxiety surrounding whether the ruling will be in favour of the people or of the government; it is also unclear if the judgement will be delivered swiftly or delayed until the next presidential term begins.

Effects on electoral accountability and democratic participation.

Electoral accountability has been marred because the people will no longer decide who they want as president. By taking away the people’s democratic right to vote for their president, the citizens have been left at the mercy of their legislators.

Transferring the functions of the Zimbabwe Electoral Commission to the Registrar General and the Delimitation Commission raises questions on whether there will be integrity in preparing for, conducting and supervising elections.

Will the Members of Parliament fairly represent their constituents in Parliament and vote for a President of the people? Can the fate of 17 million citizens be safely placed in the hands of 270 legislators?

Zimbabwe’s new constitution compared to other countries

Many other countries use the representative democracy system where voters elect representatives who then elect the president. Some of the key features of this system include:

• Electoral system: the citizens choose their representatives in a free and fair election. If the leaders elected fail to perform, they are accountable to the people and can be replaced.
• Rule of law: all citizens must adhere to the law, including the leaders. The rights of the people and minorities are protected, and legal action can be taken against the government if not adhered to.
• Separation of powers: The Executive, Legislature and Judiciary arms of government are separated to avoid any arm gaining too much power.

In other countries where parliamentary elections of presidents are held, leaders are held in high esteem and the citizens are empowered enough to know that they have the power to hold their leaders accountable.

In the United States, for example, a citizen votes for their favourite presidential candidate, but in the actual sense, they are voting for an elector who has pledged to vote for that specific candidate. These electors are referred to as the Electoral College, and the candidate with the most votes from these colleges wins the election. Other countries that hold parliamentary elections include Austria, France, and Japan, among many others.

However, Zimbabwe will probably not follow this process. With the Registrar General being a presidential-appointed civil servant, it is highly unlikely that they will be impartial and that the elections will be fair.

The Zimbabwean government will have control of the Judiciary, effectively appointing judges. If there is any legal action taken against the government, it will be very hard for it to go far. The President has control over the Executive, Legislature and Judiciary; there is no separation of powers. Essentially, the government will be too powerful with no limits to power.

Zimbabwe is not the only country where leaders have gone to parliament to extend their term limits. Countries like Somalia, Togo, Rwanda, and Côte d’Ivoire have done the same. Togo, for example, passed constitutional amendments that ended universal suffrage and allowed members of parliament to vote for the president in 2024. However, instead of lengthening presidential term limits, they shortened the term limits to four years with a maximum of two terms.

In 2015, Rwanda amended its constitution and held a public referendum where the people allowed the president to stay in office. The amendments, however, shortened the term limits to five years with a maximum of two terms. Interestingly, through the changes, President Kagame extended his third, seven-year term and then won the 2024 elections, keeping him in office until 2029. It is quite possible that he will get another five-year term and stay in office until 2034.

Proponents of the Zimbabwe constitutional amendments consistently cite similarities to how South Africa runs its government. So, South Africa has a similar system where the legislature votes for its president. However, the constitution limits the president to serving a maximum of two terms.

Wider implications for constitutionalism and democratic governance across Southern Africa

Having a constitution does not necessarily mean abiding by it. This is mainly because power is a sweet drug, especially in Africa, and once presidents and leaders have a taste, they become hooked. According to Research Gate, democracy is largely defined by sycophancy and hero-worship, with crowds of courtiers forever assuring rulers of their messianic credentials. The rulers become slaves to passion, thereby subverting reason and morally driven governance.

This explains why Africa’s virtual dictators are reluctant to retire and allow fresh hands to reboot their countries for stability and possible economic growth.

For countries across Southern Africa, the political elite cling to power and use constitutional loopholes and sometimes force to remain in power, thus weakening constitutionalism. Where the electoral system lacks integrity and free and fair elections are but a myth, democratic governance is more of a suggestion than the ideal.

Some of the safeguards to ensure continuous representation include:

• Absolute majority requirement where a candidate must get the majority of votes, and failure to do so would require run-off elections.
• In the event of a presidential vacancy, the vice president would act as the president until a new president is elected within 30 days.
• The Zimbabwe Electoral Commission will oversee the legislative elections.

Amending the constitution using loopholes sets a dangerous precedent for future leadership.

The constitution clearly states that any amendment would require a public referendum, but Mnangagwa has bypassed it and forced changes that favour him and ZANU PF, as the ruling party. He basically has control over the Executive, Legislature and Judiciary arms of Government, making his power boundless. If the Constitutional Court does not intervene, Zimbabwe’s democracy will be in shambles because the president will have constitutional loopholes and government resources at hand to extend power at will.

The government has left the world amazed at how it can easily impose changes to the Supreme Constitution, while still maintaining a façade of constitutional democracy.