FOR months, Zimbabweans have been told there was nothing to fear.
President Emmerson Mnangagwa repeatedly declared that he was a constitutionalist who would respect the country’s supreme law and had no intention of extending his stay in office.
Those assurances were meant to calm growing public concern over attempts by sections of Zanu PF to amend the Constitution through Constitution Amendment (No. 3) Bill (CAB 3).
Yet politics is ultimately judged not by words, but by actions.
Last week’s extraordinary recall of Parliament to consider Senate amendments to CAB 3 has inevitably raised fresh questions about the President’s commitment to the constitutional principles he has publicly claimed to champion.
While the Bill still has to complete the legislative process before it becomes law, the decision to summon Parliament has placed the Presidency squarely at the centre of legislation that many constitutional lawyers, civil society organisations and opposition parties have fiercely opposed.
The Constitution is not an ordinary statute.
It is the covenant between the governed and those who govern.
- NoViolet Bulawayo’s new novel is an instant Zimbabwean classic
- Jah Prayzah, Zanu PF rekindles ‘lost love’
- Bank workers appeal to Ncube for tax relief
- Indosakusa marks 21-year anniversary milestone
Keep Reading
It should never be altered simply because the political arithmetic of the day makes it possible.
Zimbabwe’s Constitution was adopted in 2013 after one of the most extensive consultation exercises in the country’s history.
Millions of Zimbabweans participated in the process because they wanted safeguards against the concentration of power and the abuse of public office.
Constitutional term limits were among those safeguards.
That is why every attempt to alter provisions affecting executive power deserves the highest level of public scrutiny.
Supporters of CAB 3 insist that the amendments are lawful because Parliament has followed constitutional procedures.
That may well be true procedurally, albeit with questions marks.
But legality alone does not answer the more important question: is this amendment in the national interest?
The real test of constitutional leadership is not whether leaders possess the numbers to amend the Constitution.
It is whether they exercise the restraint not to do so when public confidence is at stake.
Throughout Africa, constitutional amendments touching on executive tenure have frequently generated suspicion because they create the perception that the rules of the political game are being adjusted to benefit the incumbents.
Even where such changes comply with legal procedures, they often weaken public trust in democratic institutions.
Zimbabwe cannot afford another chapter in which constitutional debates consume the nation’s attention while citizens continue battling unemployment, poor public service, deteriorating infrastructure and a rising cost of living.
The country’s greatest need today is economic recovery, not constitutional engineering.
The President has often spoken about leaving behind a legacy founded on constitutionalism, stability and respect for institutions.
Legacies, however, are built through consistent actions.
When leaders publicly pledge fidelity to the Constitution, citizens naturally expect every subsequent action to reinforce and not complicate that commitment.
The controversy surrounding CAB 3 demonstrates why constitutions should never become instruments of political convenience.
Every amendment sets a precedent for future governments.
Powers expanded today may be used tomorrow by leaders with entirely different intentions.
The ultimate loser in such circumstances is not one political party or another.
Rather it is the Constitution itself.
Zimbabwe deserves constitutional certainty. Investors require it. Citizens depend on it. Democracy flourishes because of it.
History has repeatedly shown that strong institutions — not strong individuals — build stable nations.
Whatever Parliament ultimately decides, this debate should remind every Zimbabwean that constitutional protections are only as secure as the willingness of leaders to respect both the letter and the spirit of the supreme law.
Promises inspire confidence.
Actions determine whether that confidence is justified.
When Mnangagwa recalled Parliament last week to sit and consider amendments introduced by the Senate, he removed the cloak covering who was behind the term extension.
He told the world that it was he himself who was behind his own term extension.
He has sent the message that politicians cannot be trusted.
