THE Zimbabwean Cabinet on Tuesday announced that it had accepted the principles of the omnibus Constitutional Amendment Number 3, that seeks tear into the heart of the Constitution of 2013 and entrench a permanent Zanu PF leadership in the country.
The Bill, among other things, seeks to change the presidential and parliamentary term from five to seven years, president to be elected by Parliament, create the Zimbabwe Electoral Delimitation Commission, allow the President to appoint 10 senators, custody and maintenance of the voters roll being given to the Registrar-General, remove public interviews for judges, appointment of the Attorney-General, military to act in accordance with the Constitution instead of upholding the Constitution.
These are fundamental changes to a virgin Constitution, the youngest Constitution in Sadc region, that was only adopted in 2013.
The Harare regime is not ashamed to mutilate the Constitution three times in a decade, yet it is still to fully implement the 2013 Constitution. Provincial governments and the new Urban Councils Act to enable implementation of devolution are still outstanding.
The noticeable change in the three constitutional amendments is granting of imperial powers to the president, a president who now has to serve the longest term in the region and, worst of all, does not answer questions in Parliament from MPs.
The changes will decouple local council elections with Parliament.
Keep Reading
- Enact Right to Shelter Act, Parly urged
- Suspended CCC councillor arrested
- Zanu PF blocks ChiTown mayoral elections
- Cartoon: Govt meddling in our affairs: Councils
Council elections will remain on the five-year cycle, while parliamentary elections move to the seven-year cycle.
It means, Zimbabwe will continue to be in an election mode every three years.
The unhidden truth is that the changes are all being done to put paid the Zanu PF 2030 agenda.
Zanu PF presidential candidates are becoming unelectable, hence the need to shield them from direct election and ride on the gerrymandering of constituencies.
Information permanent secretary Ndavaningi (Nick) Mangwana defended the changes on social media, X, using his verified handle.
Wrote Mangwana: “Botswana lauded for its stability and governance, elects its president not by direct popular vote, but through its parliament. South Africa, with its world celebrated constitution, uses exact same method: its president is chosen by the National Assembly.
“Yet, when Zimbabwe discusses moving towards a similar parliamentary-based system the very same commentators who praise Botswana and South Africa suddenly decry it as ‘undemocratic’.
“The mechanism is identical. The reaction is not. The inconsistency speaks volumes about perception, narrative, and perhaps, a different set of rules for different players.”
Mangwana drew false parallels.
Yes, the South African President is elected by parliament.
However, the similarities end there.
The South Africans use proportional representation in their election unlike Zimbabwe, which uses constituency-based first past the post electoral system.
Mangwana left it unsaid that a South African president responds to questions in Parliament during presidential question and answer sessions.
Mangwana further did not disclose that a South African president nominates a Chief Justice and the same has to be confirmed by Parliament.
All other judges have to go through public interviews.
It did not occur to Mangwana that Zimbabwe used to have MPs elected through proportional representation and an executive prime minister elected by Parliament until 1990.
He did not say what informed the changes to have a directly elected president then and why, all of a sudden, we go back to the same system we discarded 35 years ago.
Leaders elected by parliaments survive in office only if there is stability in their political party.
Recent experiences in the United Kingdom shows the same when Conservatives changed four prime ministers in three years before they lost a general election to Labour.
In any event, South African president is elected for five-year term and can only seek re-election once.
History shows that South Africa since its independence in 1994 has had six presidents and two of them did not finish their terms after they were forced out by their political party, African National Congress.
Most countries in Sadc have five-year presidential terms.
Mozambique, Botswana, South Africa and Namibia have only been ruled by liberation movements, but they have changed leaders at 10-year intervals.
Why then do Zanu PF presidents want 14 years?
It is interesting that the Zanu PF regime, against advice from its legal secretary then Patrick Chinamasa and other constitutional experts, still insists on presidential term extension without going through a referendum.
Is it that Zanu PF knows it will lose a referendum and hence all the shenanigans to avoid one?
Why would MPs want seven-year terms?
What justification do they have when in the last 15 years they have dismally failed to hold the Executive to account?
They have also failed to pass legislation that help the people, except Finance Bills that get them paid and receive luxury vehicles.
The President in Zimbabwe is allowed to appoint Chief Justice, Judge President and Prosecutor-General without public interviews.
The President is further allowed to promote judges without going through public interviews.
Why would the President want to completely deal away with public interviews of judges?
Only one reason is conceivable --- the President wants to bench-pack.
Why would the President need to appoint 10 senators?
The President currently enjoys the power to appoint seven non-constituency MPs to help enlarge the pool of potential Cabinet minister he/she can choose.
Surely, having 17 unelected MPs is an overkill and will allow a president to entirely pick a cabinet from non-elected officials.
Is it that the President does not trust his/her elected political party members?
As the charade of public consultations on the Bill starts, we will hear many weird and false parallels to support the amendment.
Parliament is likely to give the Bill a perfunctory scrutiny before passing it.
It is only public response that can stop further mutilation of the Constitution.
I’m out!