News / National
Mnangagwa accused of plotting 'coup against the Constitution'
3 hrs ago | Views
President Emmerson Mnangagwa is once again at the centre of controversy amid reports of a clandestine bid to extend his stay in office by manipulating the constitution - a move legal experts are calling a "coup against the constitution."
Leaked cabinet proposals by Justice Minister Ziyambi Ziyambi reveal plans to introduce Constitutional Amendment No. 3, aimed at postponing national elections and extending the lifespan of the current parliament - effectively handing Mnangagwa an additional two or three years in power without removing presidential term limits.
Critics argue this represents a brazen subversion of Zimbabwe's constitutional order. "What Mnangagwa is doing through Ziyambi amounts to a coup against the constitution," said a senior constitutional lawyer, speaking on condition of anonymity. "It is a systematic attempt to undermine democratic norms and rewrite the fundamental rules of governance."
The proposals, initially championed by Bikita South MP Energy Mutodi, are said to have gained traction following last year's Zanu-PF annual conference in Bulawayo, which passed a resolution endorsing Mnangagwa's continued leadership beyond his second term.
Originally, insiders claim, the plan was to pursue a third term - a route requiring the removal of presidential term limits via a constitutional amendment and two referenda. However, this option was deemed legally and politically cumbersome, especially given the constitutional provision barring an incumbent from benefiting from such an amendment.
Abandoning that route, a new strategy has emerged: extending the parliamentary term to delay elections. Analysts argue this is an indirect method of staying in power without triggering the legal safeguards attached to presidential term limits.
"This is unconstitutional and illegal," said another lawyer. "Parliament cannot arbitrarily extend its term. Nor can it postpone elections without violating the very framework that governs our democracy."
Legal interpretations differ on whether an incumbent can benefit from a constitutional amendment removing term limits. One view holds that with two referenda, it is legally feasible. The other insists the framers of the 2013 Constitution were deliberate in barring sitting presidents from extending their own rule - a safeguard shaped by the painful legacy of Robert Mugabe's prolonged tenure.
"It's not just about changing the law - this is about dismantling the architecture of accountability," said political analyst Tendai Mahere. "What Mnangagwa is doing is no different from the 2017 coup. Back then it was against Mugabe. This time it's against the constitution."
Mnangagwa, who came to power in 2017 after a military-assisted transition, has consistently positioned himself as a reformer. Yet critics say his rule has mirrored - and in some areas worsened - the authoritarian patterns of his predecessor.
The latest manoeuvre has sparked fears of democratic backsliding. "Term limits exist to prevent exactly this type of abuse," said human rights activist Tapiwa Nyatsanza. "They are there to safeguard democratic transitions, prevent power monopolies, and ensure fresh ideas and leadership."
Government insiders claim the justification being floated for the extension includes the need for "continuity, economic development, national stability, and security." But for many Zimbabweans, these justifications ring hollow.
"Good governance is about strengthening institutions, not weakening them," Nyatsanza added. "What we are seeing is an effort to concentrate power in the presidency, circumvent accountability, and disenfranchise voters."
Legal experts warn that tampering with the constitution without following due process not only violates the rule of law but also erodes public trust in state institutions.
"Once the constitution is mutilated to serve individual interests, it ceases to be a social contract," warned constitutional expert Lovemore Madhuku. "It becomes a tool of oppression rather than a shield for democracy."
As the debate intensifies, Zimbabwe finds itself at a constitutional crossroads. The fate of democratic governance in the country may well hinge on whether citizens, civil society, and independent institutions can mount enough pressure to block what many are calling a slow-motion coup against the constitution.
Leaked cabinet proposals by Justice Minister Ziyambi Ziyambi reveal plans to introduce Constitutional Amendment No. 3, aimed at postponing national elections and extending the lifespan of the current parliament - effectively handing Mnangagwa an additional two or three years in power without removing presidential term limits.
Critics argue this represents a brazen subversion of Zimbabwe's constitutional order. "What Mnangagwa is doing through Ziyambi amounts to a coup against the constitution," said a senior constitutional lawyer, speaking on condition of anonymity. "It is a systematic attempt to undermine democratic norms and rewrite the fundamental rules of governance."
The proposals, initially championed by Bikita South MP Energy Mutodi, are said to have gained traction following last year's Zanu-PF annual conference in Bulawayo, which passed a resolution endorsing Mnangagwa's continued leadership beyond his second term.
Originally, insiders claim, the plan was to pursue a third term - a route requiring the removal of presidential term limits via a constitutional amendment and two referenda. However, this option was deemed legally and politically cumbersome, especially given the constitutional provision barring an incumbent from benefiting from such an amendment.
Abandoning that route, a new strategy has emerged: extending the parliamentary term to delay elections. Analysts argue this is an indirect method of staying in power without triggering the legal safeguards attached to presidential term limits.
"This is unconstitutional and illegal," said another lawyer. "Parliament cannot arbitrarily extend its term. Nor can it postpone elections without violating the very framework that governs our democracy."
Legal interpretations differ on whether an incumbent can benefit from a constitutional amendment removing term limits. One view holds that with two referenda, it is legally feasible. The other insists the framers of the 2013 Constitution were deliberate in barring sitting presidents from extending their own rule - a safeguard shaped by the painful legacy of Robert Mugabe's prolonged tenure.
"It's not just about changing the law - this is about dismantling the architecture of accountability," said political analyst Tendai Mahere. "What Mnangagwa is doing is no different from the 2017 coup. Back then it was against Mugabe. This time it's against the constitution."
Mnangagwa, who came to power in 2017 after a military-assisted transition, has consistently positioned himself as a reformer. Yet critics say his rule has mirrored - and in some areas worsened - the authoritarian patterns of his predecessor.
The latest manoeuvre has sparked fears of democratic backsliding. "Term limits exist to prevent exactly this type of abuse," said human rights activist Tapiwa Nyatsanza. "They are there to safeguard democratic transitions, prevent power monopolies, and ensure fresh ideas and leadership."
Government insiders claim the justification being floated for the extension includes the need for "continuity, economic development, national stability, and security." But for many Zimbabweans, these justifications ring hollow.
"Good governance is about strengthening institutions, not weakening them," Nyatsanza added. "What we are seeing is an effort to concentrate power in the presidency, circumvent accountability, and disenfranchise voters."
Legal experts warn that tampering with the constitution without following due process not only violates the rule of law but also erodes public trust in state institutions.
"Once the constitution is mutilated to serve individual interests, it ceases to be a social contract," warned constitutional expert Lovemore Madhuku. "It becomes a tool of oppression rather than a shield for democracy."
As the debate intensifies, Zimbabwe finds itself at a constitutional crossroads. The fate of democratic governance in the country may well hinge on whether citizens, civil society, and independent institutions can mount enough pressure to block what many are calling a slow-motion coup against the constitution.
Source - online
