Zimbabwe is on the precipice of a seismic constitutional shift as the ruling Zanu PF party prepares to push through the constitution Amendment Bill 3, a move analysts and legal experts say is designed to centralise power and extend the presidency of Emmerson Mnangagwa.
While the government frames the Bill as an effort to reinforce constitutional governance and harmonize the country’s legal order with "progressive jurisdictions," a deep dive into the proposed changes reveals a landscape where the executive branch effectively swallows the independence of the judiciary, the legislature, and elective commissions.
The proposed amendments represent the most significant reorganisation of Zimbabwe's legal framework since the 2013 constitution, with Mnangagwa emerging as the primary beneficiary of nearly every clause. By leveraging Zanu PF’s two-thirds majority in parliament, the administration plans to bypass a national referendum, despite warnings from legal watchdog Veritas that such an omission may violate the fundamental values of the existing constitution.
At the heart of the Bill is a plan to extend the president’s term of office, and that of parliament, by two years. Under the current 2013 constitution, Mnangagwa’s term is set to expire in 2028. Clause 4 of the new bill, however, seeks to move that expiration to 2030. This change is not merely a technical adjustment; it is a direct challenge to the safeguards established to prevent indefinite rule.
Legal experts, including Veritas, have raised a "red-flag" regarding Section 328(7) of the constitution. This specific provision mandates that any amendment extending a term limit cannot apply to the person currently holding that office.
To allow Mnangagwa to remain in office until 2030, the government would need to override or amend Section 328(7), a move that legally requires approval by a majority of voters in a national referendum. The government’s insistence on bypassing the public has led to accusations of "cherry-picking" sections of the law to suit the incumbent.
Critics argue the justification for this extension is "unconvincing" and ignores the reality that the bill serves to elongate the period the current president remains in power.
Perhaps the most radical shift proposed in Amendment Bill 3 is the move to strip Zimbabwean citizens of their right to directly elect their leader. Clause 3 provides for the president to be elected by parliament rather than by voters in a general election.
- Commodity price boom buoys GB
- NoViolet Bulawayo’s new novel is an instant Zimbabwean classic
- New perspectives: Building capacity of agricultural players in Zim
- Fired judge given 2 weeks to return govt property
Keep Reading
Given that Zanu PF currently enjoys a two-thirds majority in the legislature, analysts say it is a foregone conclusion that the next President would emerge from the ruling party, further insulating the executive from the direct will of the electorate.
This transition from a popular vote to a parliamentary election essentially transforms the presidency into a role determined by party loyalty and legislative maneuvering. For Mnangagwa, this ensures a smoother path to retention of power, as it removes the unpredictable variable of a
The bill seeks to dismantle the transparent mechanisms used to appoint the nation’s top legal officers, effectively reducing the judiciary and the chief prosecutor to what critics describe as "presidential hirelings". Clause 15 proposes that all judges, from the Chief Justice down to the High Court, be appointed by the President after "consultation" with the Judicial Service Commission.
This would abolish the current requirements for public nominations and televised interviews, removing any semblance of transparency. Veritas warns that if judges are appointed at the "whim of the President," the public will lose respect for the independence and impartiality of the courts.
Furthermore, Clause 20 gives the President sole discretion to appoint the Prosecutor-General without seeking any outside advice. This concentration of power is seen as a direct threat to the rule of law, as the Prosecutor-General—who decides who is prosecuted for crimes—would likely lack the independence to act against members of the executive.
The Constitutional Court’s jurisdiction is also under threat. Clause 14 proposes to allow the court to grant itself leave to appeal on any matter it deems to be of "general public importance".
Experts describe this as a "dangerous" power grab that allows the court to determine its own jurisdiction, potentially encroaching on the Supreme Court’s status as the final court of appeal.
While the president is the primary winner, members of the current parliament and senate also stand to benefit through the extension of their terms from five to seven years. This "immediate benefit" ensures that current legislators remain in power until 2030 without facing the electorate in 2028.
However, this comes at a cost to the separation of powers. Clause 8 gives the President the authority to appoint ten Senators based on their "professional skills".
Critics point out that this is a throwback to the Robert Mugabe era, where the late president used similar powers to appoint loyalists.
Veritas noted that this amendment will indirectly allow the President to bypass the current limit of seven cabinet ministers appointed from outside parliament. By appointing prospective ministers as senators first, the president could pack his cabinet with unelected loyalists who are personally beholden to him.
If the president and his party are the winners, independent commissions are the clear "immediate casualties" of the bill. The Zimbabwe Electoral Commission (ZEC) is set to be stripped of its core functions, including voter registration, maintaining the voters' roll, and delimiting electoral boundaries.
Under Clause 2, the responsibility for voter registration will return to the registrar-general, a civil servant under the direct political control of the president through his ministers.
This has sparked fears of political manipulation, as the registrar-general’s office was previously accused of failing to properly maintain voters' rolls between 1980 and 2013.
Furthermore, a new "Zimbabwe Electoral Delimitation Commission" would be established to handle constituency boundaries, with all members appointed by the president and serving at his pleasure. This means the commission would lack even the "notional independence" currently held by the Zec.
Social and human rights protections are also on the chopping block. Clauses 18 and 19 seek to abolish the Zimbabwe Gender Commission, transferring its functions to the more generalised Zimbabwe Human Rights Commission.
Women’s rights groups have expressed fierce opposition, arguing that a specialised commission is necessary to handle endemic gender-based violence in the country.
Similarly, Clause 22 formally abolishes the National Peace and Reconciliation Commission, which legally ceased to exist in 2023 but had continued to receive government funding.
The bill also seeks to formalise the political role of traditional leaders. Currently, Section 281(2) of the constitution mandates that chiefs must be non-partisan. Clause 21 will abolish this requirement, allowing traditional leaders to officially join political parties.
This is widely seen as a move to allow Zanu PF to continue using chiefs to "whip their subjects" into supporting the ruling party in rural areas. Critics argue that being party-political will interfere with the traditional impartiality required for chiefs to preside over local courts and allocate land.
Regarding the military, Clause 16 removes the "separate function" of the Defence Forces to uphold the Constitution. Instead, it will state that protecting the people must be done "in accordance with" the constitution.
While some analysts suggest this change does not significantly alter their role, others believe it subtly weakens the military’s duty to serve as a constitutional watchdog.
The government's memorandum claims these changes will "strengthen democratic structures," but legal watchdogs are scathing in their assessment.
Veritas has stated that "the Bill has nothing to recommend it" and should be rejected in its entirety by parliament. The watchdog warns that rather than aligning Zimbabwe with "progressive" nations, these amendments bring the country’s system into line with authoritarian regimes like those in the Central African Republic, Gabon, and Equatorial Guinea—none of which are known for stability or good governance.
As the bill moves toward Parliament, the primary beneficiary remains clear: Mnangagwa. Through term extensions, the end of direct elections, and the systematic dismantling of independent oversight, the proposed changes represent a comprehensive consolidation of executive power.
Even if passed by the Zanu PF-dominated legislature, the amendments are likely to face fierce legal challenges on the grounds that they violate the fundamental values and core structure of the Zimbabwean constitution.
