MNANGAGWA MOVES TO CHANGE ELECTORAL RULES AGAIN AS CONSTITUTIONAL BATTLE DEEPENS

HARARE — Zimbabwe's constitutional debate has entered another phase, with President Emmerson Mnangagwa now calling for changes to the country's electoral laws only months after Constitution Amendment No. 3 was enacted, extending the presidential and parliamentary terms from five to seven years and moving the next general election timetable to 2030.

Addressing Parliament, Mnangagwa said legislation must now be brought into line with the constitutional changes.

Among the measures he identified were amendments to the Electoral Act, amendments to the Constitutional Court Act, and a new Delimitation Commission Act.

The President described the changes as consequential amendments required following the enactment of Constitutional Amendment No. 3.

But the timing is significant.

The country has barely moved beyond the controversy surrounding the constitutional amendment that altered the presidential electoral system and extended the political timetable.

FROM DIRECT ELECTIONS TO PARLIAMENTARY ELECTION

One of the most consequential changes under Amendment No. 3 is the removal of the direct popular election of the President.

Under the amended framework, the President is to be elected by members of Parliament sitting jointly as the Senate and National Assembly. A candidate requires more than half of the valid votes cast, with a run-off between the two leading candidates if necessary.

That represents a fundamental change in how Zimbabweans choose their President.

Instead of voters directly casting a presidential ballot, the choice would be made through Parliament.

Human Rights Watch described the July amendment as ending the popular vote for President while giving Mnangagwa two additional years in office.

The government's position, however, is that the subsequent legislative amendments are necessary to ensure that existing laws are consistent with the amended Constitution.

THE 2030 QUESTION

The constitutional changes extended presidential and parliamentary terms from five to seven years.

For Mnangagwa, that moved the expected end of his current term from 2028 to 2030.

That issue is already the subject of a legal dispute.

Constitutional watchdog Veritas has argued that Amendment No. 3 was invalidly promulgated because, in its interpretation, the changes required approval through a national referendum and because other constitutional requirements were not satisfied. This is a legal position advanced by Veritas, not a final judicial determination.

That distinction matters because the courts, rather than political rhetoric, will ultimately determine the legal status of any challenge brought before them.

THEN CAME THE 2035 REMARK

The constitutional controversy gained another dimension in September when Mnangagwa told delegates at the Sanganai/Hlanganani Tourism Expo in Masvingo that he would still be in power when the event returned to the province after nine years.

Nine years from 2026 is 2035.

The comment was made in a tourism setting and has been reported as a light-hearted remark. Mnangagwa did not set out a constitutional mechanism that would allow him to remain President beyond the 2030 electoral timetable.

Nevertheless, the timing made the statement politically significant.

It came only weeks after Amendment No. 3 had changed the country's electoral framework.

The result has been renewed speculation about whether Zimbabwe could face another constitutional battle before 2030.

At present, there is no established constitutional amendment extending Mnangagwa's tenure to 2035. Any claim that such an extension has already been decided would go beyond the available evidence.

BITI: “THE INK IS STILL WET”

The prospect of further constitutional change has drawn resistance from lawyers, opposition figures and civic groups.

Tendai Biti of the Defend the Constitution Forum has argued that the government should not be moving towards additional constitutional changes so soon after Amendment No. 3.

His criticism is centred on what he sees as a continuing erosion of Zimbabwe's constitutional order and the principle that the country is a republic.

The broader argument is not simply about Mnangagwa personally.

It concerns whether constitutional rules governing elections and the transfer of presidential power can be repeatedly altered by the institutions whose political interests are directly affected by those changes.

WAR VETERANS ASK: WHAT DID WE FIGHT FOR?

War veteran Godfrey Gurira has similarly questioned the implications of removing the direct presidential vote.

His argument is that Zimbabwe's liberation struggle was supposed to establish political participation and self-determination, raising questions about why citizens would no longer directly choose their President.

That concern goes to the heart of the new electoral arrangement.

If Parliament elects the President, the practical question becomes how parliamentary representation translates into presidential legitimacy.

It also raises a broader democratic question: should the person occupying the country's highest elected office derive their mandate directly from voters or indirectly through Parliament?

The constitutional amendment has answered that question in law. The political debate over whether that is an appropriate model remains unresolved.

THE JUDICIARY NOW FACES A CRITICAL TEST

Constitutional lawyer Lovemore Madhuku has argued that the judiciary derives its authority from the Constitution and ultimately from the people, rather than from the executive or Parliament.

His argument is particularly relevant as legal challenges surrounding Amendment No. 3 continue.

The courts could therefore become the next major arena in Zimbabwe's constitutional dispute.

But there is an important distinction between political criticism of the amendment and a court finding that the amendment is unlawful.

Until the courts rule, claims about its ultimate validity remain contested.

WHY THE ELECTORAL ACT MATTERS

The proposed Electoral Act amendments may appear technical, but electoral legislation determines how constitutional principles operate in practice.

Questions likely to matter include:

Who votes?

How are voters registered?

How are constituencies delimited?

What role does the Zimbabwe Electoral Commission play?

How are presidential elections conducted?

What safeguards exist against manipulation of the electoral process?

How are disputes resolved?

These are not minor administrative details. They determine how political power is transferred.

The proposed new Delimitation Commission Act is particularly important because delimitation determines electoral boundaries and therefore affects representation.

ZIMBABWE'S CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTION IS NOW BIGGER THAN 2030

The immediate question is whether Parliament will successfully pass the consequential amendments requested by Mnangagwa.

The deeper question is what Zimbabwe's constitutional system will look like by the time the next presidential contest arrives.

Amendment No. 3 has already changed the presidential electoral mechanism, extended the political cycle and altered the timetable for the next election.

The President's subsequent call for changes to electoral and Constitutional Court legislation means the process of reshaping the legal framework is continuing.

And his 2035 remark has ensured that the public debate is no longer confined to 2030.

There is, however, a difference between political speculation and established constitutional fact.

As things stand, 2030 remains the electoral timetable created by Amendment No. 3, while the 2035 question remains unanswered in law.

AFRICA & BEYOND PERSPECTIVE

Constitutions are supposed to provide rules for the exercise and transfer of power, including rules that apply to those currently holding office.

That makes every proposed electoral amendment worthy of public scrutiny — particularly when it affects the method of choosing a President, the timing of elections, the institutions responsible for elections and the courts that adjudicate constitutional disputes.

Zimbabwe has already gone through one major constitutional confrontation in 2026.

The latest legislative programme suggests the argument is not over.

The country is now watching Parliament, the courts and the executive to see where the next stage of Zimbabwe's constitutional order will lead.

Africa & Beyond — News | Analysis | Perspective