THE Zanu PF faction pushing for the controversial term extension for President Emmerson Mnangagwa and other elected representatives has conceded that certain sections of the Constitution Amendment No 3 Bill (CAB 3) are unpopular and agreed to drop two contentious clauses.
A frustrated Justice, Legal and Parliamentary Affairs minister, Ziyambi Ziyambi, who has become the face of the contentious term-limit push, told the National Assembly that he will yield to demands to abandon plans to scrap the Zimbabwe Gender Commission and to allow chiefs to dabble in partisan politics.
Ziyambi made the concession in response to legislators’ contributions to CAB 3 debate where a few vocal Citizens Coalition for Change (CCC) legislators have thwarted the Zanu PF faction’s strategy to fast-track Bill.
He admitted that legislators from across the political divide were against the scrapping of the commission and changing the political status of traditional leaders.
Ziyambi said the government yielded to the demands of the majority on the two clauses although it was still insisting on term extensions.
On chiefs, Ziyambi said the Bill sought to resolve a real contradiction, where the traditional leaders seat in Parliament and their votes are counted in constitutional majorities, yet they should remain out of politics.
Keep Reading
- Mr President, you missed the opportunity to be the veritable voice of conscience
- ED to commission new-look border post
- Zanu PF ready for congress
- EU slams Zim over delayed reforms
He said the public majority had supported the provision.
“The Honourable House divided on it in good faith. I record too, Mr. Speaker, that the case for political participation of chiefs was pressed with conviction by Honourable Jere, who urged that they be appointed rather than elected by Honourable Mananzva, Honourable Musweweshiri, Honourable Chayemvura and Honourable Samambwa. The Honourable House weighed their voices and the committee’s recommendation alike,” Ziyambi said.
“Honorable Guyo recalled Chief Ndiweni to show the cost of pushing traditional leaders to the margins of public life. And Honourable Makaza and Honourable Tayedzwa spoke to the same end. But the joint committee identified the decisive principle.
“Our chiefs preside over courts of customary law, and those who sit in judgment must stand apart from partisan contests. This principle is unassailable. Government is persuaded and will be guided by the committee’s recommendation that the status quo remain when the Bill reaches its clause-by-clause consideration.”
The Bill moved to the committee stage after the minister’s intervention, and the MPs were set to debate late into the night where the undesirable clauses were scheduled to be removed.
Nqobizitha Mlilo, spokesperson of the CCC faction led by self-imposed secretary-general Sengezo Tshabangu, attributed Ziyambi’s concessions to negotiations between their group and Zanu PF.
Tshabangu has been negotiating with Zanu PF for CAB 3’s safe passage with the hope that his faction will be invited into Mnangagwa’s government.
“On the two clauses, we acknowledge the concessions by the minister,” Mlilo said.
“It reflects the good-faith negotiations we had and we appreciate that he has been consistent with our discussions.
“We encourage Zimbabweans to continue to dialogue among themselves for us to build a truly united country and nation.
“To cap all these negotiations is the establishment of the government of national consensus — that is, the end product of these difficult negotiations we had.
“We are only left with one issue: that the end product of CAB 3 should be a government of national consensus as we move towards CAB 4.”
Munyaradzi Gwisai, a former MDC MP and leading lawyer, said MPs who stood against CAB 3 in the National Assembly exposed the bad intentions behind the term-extension clauses.
CAB 3 is meant to extend Mnangagwa’s term by two years and expand the life of Parliament by a similar period.
“The various opposition MPs who have spoken have done a very good job in exposing the bankruptcy of the proposal and the extension of the term by two years,” Gwisai said.
“But you must also see that another fundamental demand is to earn a referendum.
“That was also raised by a lot of MPs. If they seek to push those amendments, the question is very clear: they must get the people's consent through a referendum.
“I think that people must not give up. Those MPs have done well, but it is now important for them to mobilise their constituents and the broader civil society.”
Ziyambi also told the House that the most contentious aspects of the Bill were precisely the provisions on presidential elections and the length of the electoral cycle, acknowledging they drew the “heaviest debate”.
“Mr Speaker, I come to debate on the Bill’s core amendments, which drew the heaviest debate: the election of the President through Parliament and the length of the national electoral cycle,” he said.
A parliamentary committee recently claimed that it received 540 037 submissions, with 537 102 supporting the Bill and only 2 935 opposing it. Public hearings across the provinces reportedly attracted 54 231 participants.
Ziyambi launched a blistering attack on 30 legislators who opposed the Bill in its entirety, accusing them of failing to engage with broader constitutional issues.
He argued that critics ignored what he described as five “afflictions” plaguing Zimbabwe since direct presidential elections were introduced, including disputed elections, political violence, policy paralysis and deepening polarisation.
“Listening to some, one would be forgiven for thinking the honourable members concerned were absent when I presented the second reading speech or that they were unaware that the speech exists at all, printed in the handouts for any member who cared to read it,” Ziyambi said.
“Yet not one of the 30 members who opposed this Bill in its entirety engaged all the five afflictions. Most seized upon one, declared the Bill to be about nothing else and rejected the whole on the strength of that one part.”
According to Ziyambi, 182 legislators made substantive contributions during the debate.
Of these, 111 fully supported the Bill, 31 backed it but raised reservations, 10 took no definitive position and 30 opposed it entirely.
Meanwhile, war veterans represented by constitutional lawyer Lovemore Madhuku vowed to take their case to the High Court after the Constitutional Court declined to exercise jurisdiction over their challenge to the Bill.
The court ruled that the duties allegedly breached by Mnangagwa were not specific enough to warrant its exclusive jurisdiction.
“The Constitutional Court has said that it will not entertain the matter on the basis that although the President has the duties that we had indicated through the application, those duties are not specific enough to allow the Constitutional Court to exercise its exclusive jurisdiction,” Madhuku said.
“So, they declined to exercise jurisdiction. What this means is that the application ought to be lodged in a lower court, which is the High Court. The High Court can determine those issues and then it goes up to the Constitutional Court through the normal processes of appeal and so forth”.
CAB 3 is seen as an instrument to block Vice-President Constantino Chiwenga from succeeding Mnangagwa, which is being used by the Zanu PF faction backed by “moneybags”.
Chiwenga has consistently warned that Zanu PF has been hijacked by a group that is interested in self-enrichment.
Retired army generals and senior civil servants, led by Retired Air Vice-Marshal Henry Muchena, have also come out in the open to oppose CAB 3, which they say is an assault on the ideals of the liberation struggle, such as the one-man, one-vote principle.