Zimbabwe’s veterans of the 1970s liberation war came out guns blazing this week, condemning a wave of violence against individuals opposing impending constitutional amendments, describing it as a dangerous regression.
Long associated with periods of political violence, especially during the chaotic land invasions of the early 2000s, the veterans have taken a striking and somewhat paradoxical stance, slamming the culture of intimidation they were once accused of fuelling.
During the invasions, groups aligned with Zanu PF were widely linked to violent farm takeovers and assaults on perceived political opponents, creating a legacy that still haunts the country’s democratic processes to date. This week, the same constituency repositioned itself as a defender of constitutionalism.
The Zimbabwe National Liberation War Veterans Association came out forcefully, slamming violence linked to the amendments.
The Bill, which seeks to extend the presidential term to 2030, has triggered a wave of intimidation against activists and civic leaders. In a sharp rebuke, the association’s chairperson, Ethan Mathibela, described the attacks as “deeply troubling” and fundamentally incompatible with democratic principles.
“The pattern of violence against critics is deeply troubling and cannot be dismissed as isolated incidents,” Mathibela told the Zimbabwe Independent, warning that whether orchestrated or simply tolerated, such actions cultivate fear and suffocate public participation.
Keep Reading
- Corruption Watch: Get scared, 2023 is coming
- Corruption Watch: Get scared, 2023 is coming
- Letters: Ensuring Africa’s food security through availability of quality seeds
- Is military's involvement in politics compatible with democracy?
Mathibela said a constitution shaped under intimidation is illegitimate. He stressed that Zimbabwe cannot afford to build its supreme law around individuals or temporary political assurances, even if leaders publicly promise to step down. Instead, constitutional reforms must be durable, impartial and rooted in the collective will of the people.
He argued that the proposed amendments risk concentrating power within the executive while eroding democratic safeguards, including judicial independence.
“Any constitutional change must be people-driven, not elite-driven,” he insisted, adding that the current process appears to sideline ordinary citizens in favour of political expediency.
The violence surrounding the debate has already targeted key figures, including Lovemore Madhuku, a vocal advocate for a national referendum. Reports of activists being harassed and beaten reinforce the concerns Mathibela raised — that dissent is being crushed to smoothen the path for controversial reforms.
Despite the tense environment, the war veterans’ association says it is actively engaging citizens through outreach campaigns, community meetings and collaboration with civic groups. Their goal is to demystify the Bill and empower Zimbabweans to understand its implications, in an effort that reflects a shift from their past image as instruments of political coercion.
Mathibela also pointed to Section 328 of the constitution as a non-negotiable legal framework. Any amendment, he explained, must undergo rigorous public scrutiny, consultation and parliamentary approval, and, where necessary, a referendum. He warned that attempts to bypass these steps would not only be unconstitutional, but further delegitimise the process.
While acknowledging that Zanu PF’s parliamentary dominance could see the Bill passed, Mathibela dismissed legality without legitimacy.
“A constitution derives its authority from the people,” he said. “Without their genuine consent, any amendment will remain contested.”
In a country where war veterans once symbolised raw political power, their new rhetoric signals a complex and evolving political landscape — one where even former enforcers of the system are now challenging its excesses.
“Constitutional defence is a national duty,” Mathibela said. “This is not solely the responsibility of opposition parties. While the opposition plays a role, civil society, war veterans, churches and ordinary citizens must collectively rise to the occasion. The issue transcends party politics.
“We believe regional bodies, such as Sadc, have a responsibility to uphold democratic principles in member states. Engagement is important, but ultimately, the protection of the constitution rests with Zimbabweans themselves. Sadc can support, but it cannot substitute the will of the people.
“The level of public engagement so far has been inadequate. Many citizens remain unaware of the full implications of the Bill. Our association is intensifying efforts to reach grassroots communities, ensuring that people understand what is at stake and can participate meaningfully.” — Staff Writer.