The Government of Zimbabwe has formally updated the nation that cabinet approved proposed amendments to the Constitution. This was made public in a post cabinet media briefing issued on 10 February 2026.
That media briefing advised the nation of the next steps that will be followed, that is publishing the proposed amendments in the Government Gazette and table it before Parliament for possible adoption as a constitutional amendment. The media briefing also advised the key changes sought to be introduced.
Aside from the official communication, a document has been leaked containing what the proposed Constitution of Zimbabwe (Amendment) Bill 3, 2026 contains. This leaked version seemingly speaks to the issues contained in the media briefing and it will not be surprising if the leaked document is the actual text that may be eventually gazetted plus or minus possible variations.
This piece seeks to analyze what was said in media briefing vis-à-vis the leaked document.
The Post Cabinet Media Briefing While initial public discourse centered on debate around extending the incumbent president's term from 2028 to 2030, the Bill's provisions detail a broader consolidation of executive power and a departure from the people-driven 2013 framework. The post cabinet media briefing in summary stated as follows: - Feature Proposed Official Change Presidential and Parliamentary Term Length Presidential and Parliamentary terms increase from 5 to 7 years.Election Method Repeals Section 92; replaces direct election with a Parliamentary process.Run-off If no absolute majority in Parliament, a run-off is held. Senate President to appoint 10 senators (total moves from 80 to 90).Delimitation Function moved from ZEC to a new Electoral Delimitation Commission.Voters' Roll Maintenance and custody transferred to the Registrar-General.Judiciary Section 180(4) repealed to remove the public interview process.Gender Commission Repealed; functions moved to the Human Rights Commission.Defence Forces Function changed from "uphold the Constitution" to "Act in accordance with the Constitution."
Before and AfterA tabulated contrast of the current position against the proposed amendments is shown below. Feature 2013 Constitution (The Current Way) 2026 Proposed Amendment (The New Way) Impact on the CitizenPresidential and Parliamentary Terms 5 Years. The President and MPs must return to the people for a mandate. 7 Years. Extended terms for the President and MPs. Reduces the frequency of people’s right to vote and hold their leaders accountable.How the President is Chosen Direct Election. People directly vote and choose their President. Parliamentary Election. MPs and Senators vote for the President on behalf of the people. People no longer have a direct say in the choice of the Head of State.Judicial Appointments Public Interviews. Aspiring judges are interviewed in public to ensure merit. Direct Appointment. The President picks judges without a public interview process. Reduces transparency; the "referees" of the law are chosen behind closed doors.Managing the Voters' Roll ZEC. An independent body manages who is allowed to vote. Registrar-General. Responsibility moves back to a government department. Removes the independence of the management of the voters’ roll and increases fears that the ruling party may easily interfere and control who is on the list.Drawing Boundaries (Delimitation) ZEC. The same body that runs the election draws the constituency lines. New Commission. A separate "Delimitation Commission" will draw the maps. Splitting these duties can make it harder to track how voting areas are "carved up."Senate Composition 80 Senators. Chosen mostly through a proportional vote system. 90 Senators. The President gets to personally appoint 10 extra people. The President gains more "voting blocs" in Parliament to pass his/her preferred laws and reject people-driven laws.Gender Oversight Gender Commission. An independent body dedicated to gender equality and women's rights Repealed. Gender issues are moved to the general Human Rights Commission. Specific focus on gender equality may be diluted or "lost in the noise."National Peace & Reconciliation Commission NPRC. A dedicated body to handle past and present conflicts and healing. Repealed. The specific commission for national healing is removed. Signals a potential shift away from active, state-led national peace and reconciliation commitments.The Military’s Duty "Uphold the Constitution". The army is a guardian of the supreme law. "Act in accordance with". The wording is softened to a more passive role. Changes the expectation of the military's role and parameters in political or constitutional crises.
Keep Reading
- Mr President, what message do you have for diasporan Zimbos at UNGA?
- Don't muzzle Gukurahundi survivors: UN
- SRC welcomes Fifa decision on Zhoya
- UN has exposed ED deception
Constitutional Stability or Constitutional FlexibilityThe Constitution of Zimbabwe was amended twenty times between 1980 and 2013, with the twentieth amendment ushering in the 2013 Constitution. The 2013 Constitution has since been amended twice already, with a total of twenty eight (28) changes. Current proposals seek to usher in a third amendment with nine (9) more changes. If these changes are passed, a total of over 10% of the constitution will be entirely changed in under 20years. This means in 200 years Zimbabwe will be having an entirely new constitution from the 2013 one. More so with changes made by the Executive through ministerial imposition and not people-driven as was the 2013 constitution. In contrast, the Constitution of the United States of America was amended twenty-seven times in over two hundred and thirty years, since inception in 1787, while the Constitution of India was amended over one hundred times since inception in 1950. These comparisons bring to the fore two diametrically opposed jurisprudential theories, that is constitutional stability vs. constitutional flexibility.
Constitutional Stability protects the constitution from fleeting political whims. Frequent, fundamental changes erode the sanctity of the Constitution, transforming it from a permanent social contract into a temporary political tool. On the other hand, constitutional flexibility allows changes to be made to the constitution in line with evolving societal dynamics. Extending the terms of Parliament and President from five to seven years, altering the very method of electing a President, removing gender, peace and military frameworks all changes the structure of the constitution and points towards radical flexibility for political convenience. On the terms of office, the post cabinet media briefing argues that the intended changes promote "long-term national stability and institutional efficiency by reducing election frequency and its resultant disruptive tendencies. The Government of Zimbabwe clearly favors constitutional flexibility as opposed to constitutional stability. The Indian conception, which leans towards constitutional flexibility, has one in built protection mechanisms – the basic features doctrine, which is discussed next.
The Basic Features Doctrine vs. Procedural ComplianceUnder the basic features doctrine, there are certain characteristics, or substance of the Constitution that must never be changed. If these features are changed, the constitutional amendment becomes unconstitutional. This is the approach that is adopted in India. In contrast, procedural compliance, which the post cabinet media propagates, grants Parliament the power to amend the Constitution provided they follow the steps set out in the Constitution. This is the American approach. The Government places reliance on section 117 of the Constitution, and intimates that it will follow the steps outlined in section 328 of the Constitution. According to Justice Minister, Ziyambi Ziyambi, only the Bible is immune to amendments. Shifting from a direct popular vote to a parliamentary election of the President destroys a basic feature of the 2013 Constitution, being the right of citizens to choose their leader directly.
Removing delimitation and voter registration functions from ZEC to other bodies destroys a basic feature of the 2013 Constitution, being that all electoral functions must be reposed within the electoral management body. The 2013 Constitution specifically moved these to ZEC to ensure an independent body handled the "DNA" of an election. The roll back to the Registrar-General (an office under the Ministry of Home Affairs) is a potent example of the consolidation of executive power discussed below.
Repealing the Zimbabwe Gender Commission and redistributing its functions to the Zimbabwe Human Rights Commission destroys another basic feature of the 2013 Constitution, being the establishment of a specialized and dedicated commission to deal with gender issues. This does not cure any mischief but instead creates one being the dilution of a specialized watchdog. It is a flagrant negation of the national objective for gender equality enshrined in Section 20. By folding gender into the broader Human Rights Commission, there is an inherent risk of obscuring specific gender-based protections in a country still struggling with parity.
The overall observation on the Cabinet proposed amendments as Professor Madhuku suggests, is that Zimbabwe wants to experience the best of both worlds, unfortunately by taking the worst, and ignoring the best of those worlds. They appear to adopt India’s constitutional flexibility doctrine and ignores its best, being the basic features doctrine which serves as a critical safeguard against wanton constitutional changes affecting the basic substance of the constitution. At the same time they also want to adopt America’s procedural compliance, which is its worst doctrine while ignoring its constitutional stability doctrine which balances their constitution.
Qualitative Substantive Analysis vs. Mischief Sought to Be CuredAmendments to the law should address a specific problem or mischief. The post cabinet media briefing claims to cure election mode toxicity and the interruptions of government ongoing government projects. While "curing" these issues, the post cabinet media briefing does not prescribe a solution that eliminates election mode toxicity – it simply postpones its effects by just two years. It does not demonstrate how a government ten-year project is shielded from continuity disruptions by a seven-year term of office for example.
The Elephant in the Room: Exclusive Parliamentary Amendment or Referendum?Under the current Constitution (Section 328(7)) and (328 (9)), an amendment that extends a term limit cannot benefit the person who held that office before the amendment. In addition, any amendment proposing an extension of any term of office must be subjected to a referendum. The post cabinet media briefing conveniently omits to discuss this issue. It is not immediately clear whether the Government intends to bypass this by "repealing and substituting" sections rather than merely amending them, or if it ignores this provision entirely. This is the elephant in the room for any term extension discussion. It is precisely this debate that has sparked outrage in the past few weeks and it would have had been appropriate for the Government to make this position clearer for a more informed discourse.
Comparative Context - The African ModelsThe Cabinet briefing mentions aligning with "contemporary African constitutional models". It does not pinpoint any such African model. The assumption is that this refers to the South African system where the president is elected by Parliament. Assuming this is so, the media briefing does not highlight how the South African model will be incorporated into the Zimbabwean context. Unlike the South African model, where a proportional parliamentary system ensures that the President is elected by a diverse coalition reflecting the national vote, the proposed Zimbabwean model, combined with ten presidential appointees in the Senate, risks becoming a closed-loop system where the Executive effectively elects itself. It could be worse; it could be mimicking the publicly expressed sentiments of Uganda’s Yoweri Museveni “I am a constitutionalist…will follow the letter of the constitution”. These have now found localized expression in the post cabinet media briefing.
This invites one to draw distinction between following the letter of the constitution and its spirit. History reminds us that in Hitler’s Germany, the letter of the constitution does not lead to the spirit of the constitution. In the absence of specific comparative African contemporary constitutional models for upholding the spirit of the constitution, the justification used by the State remain a hollow promise of enhancing the architecture of government. Instead it is an attempt at consolidating executive power, especially with the increased voting blocs arising out of the ten additional appointees to Senate.
Ordo ab Chao (Order out of Chaos)?“Ordo ab chao” is the slogan for the 33rd degree Freemasons. It means order out of chaos. James Arthur, in Mushrooms and Mankind says “Secret Societies have a great motto ‘Ordo Ab Chao’ meaning ‘Order out of Chaos’. Agendas are formulated designed to give the powerful more power. Chaos is created, and media blitzed. Then cries go out for solution. Laws are passed which could never have been passed without the chaos. The order, has reigned through deception of the masses, and the agenda is accomplished.”
Resolution Number 1 of the 22nd Zanu PF National People’s Conference concretized the 2030 Agenda. This sparked intense debate about the constitutionality, logic and need for this intended result. There was a media blitz around this topic. In similar terms, the conduct of public judicial interviews in Zimbabwe following the 2013 Constitution sparked intense debate on the mischief of this provision vis-v-viz what was obtaining on the ground. Chaos erupted with critics arguing that was public dress down of those who were subsequently elevated to judicial office and equally those who didn’t make it among other criticisms. Chaos was created, the medial was blitzed, and calls for solutions made, including open letters penned about this.
The post cabinet media briefing is crafted as a solution to some of these concerns, but it goes beyond that. It does not address the real issues arising, but is designed to concentrate power in the Executive who now stand to obtain a carte blanche in judicial appointments. The proposed ability of the president to appoint ten extra senators “to broaden the scope of expertise” is crafted as a solution to the president’s limited ability to appoint a cabinet comprising of the skill set that he/she may desire.
The parliamentary presidential election seemingly reduces contestations on who holds the number one position in the country and in a way address the problematic succession issues across the divide. Having the head of the Judiciary preside over the election of the head of the Executive further blurs the lines of the Separation of Powers, a concept central to constitutional stability. It is a calculated move designed to shield the president from being subjected to an election petition in the courts. Removing the obligation to “uphold the constitution” and replacing it with “acting in accordance with the constitution” enticingly deals with the “coup that was not a coup” of 2017. All these seeming solutions serve but one purpose – entrenching power in the executive and departing from the people driven mandate established in the 2013 Constitution.
Follow Up AnalysisA whole thesis can be written about the post cabinet briefing of 10 February 2026. It is only ideal to unpack the media briefing vis-à-vis what the actual constitutional amendment will provide for. This requires to be broken down in section by section, amendment by amendment, to determine their strategic value in view of the simple constitutional premise that the authority to govern derives from the will of the people. Follow up analyses will thus be made to address this, viewed from multiple lenses including the gender perspective.
Conclusion: The Twilight of the 2013 Consensus The post cabinet media briefing of 10 February 2026 represents more than a mere adjustment of administrative timelines; it signals the entrenchment and perpetuation of an elite-deeply-patriarchal state affair, and the formal sunset of the "people-driven" constitutional era birthed in 2013. By transitioning from a direct popular mandate to a parliamentary election of the President, and by dismantling the independence of specialized commissions, the State is shifting the locus of sovereignty from the polling booth to the corridors of the Executive.
While the Government frames these changes as a pragmatic pursuit of "order" and "continuity," the first impression face value perceives a move toward radical flexibility, where the supreme law is no longer a fixed anchor, but a malleable instrument of governance. If the "will of the people" is truly the source of all governing authority, then bypassing the electorate to extend mandates, alter election methods and exclude voices affected by historical gender imbalances and prejudice creates a democratic deficit that no amount of institutional "efficiency" can fill. Ultimately, the post media briefing poses a fundamental question for the Zimbabwean legal fabric: is the Constitution a sacred covenant to be upheld, or a logistical blueprint to be redrafted at will? Additionally, for the elephant in the room, are citizens going to conform to the gendered notions of the biblical submission by consent in adopting the executive demands, or we will witness forced consent by coercion? As the Bill moves toward the Gazette, the answer to that question will determine the trajectory of the nation’s democracy for decades to come.
Jeremiah Mutongi Bamu is a human rights lawyer,and Glanis Changachirere is an activist, feminist and doctoral researcher in international development