Colonial masters sound alarm over Zimbabwe 'power grab'

A heated debate erupted in the House of Lords on Wednesday as peers criticised proposed constitutional amendments in Zimbabwe, warning they could entrench President Emmerson Mnangagwa's hold on power and weaken democratic safeguards.

The discussion centred on reported reforms linked to Constitutional Amendment No. 3, which critics say could pave the way for extending presidential terms beyond current limits and shift aspects of electoral authority away from direct public voting.

Raising the matter in Parliament, Baroness Hoey questioned what engagement the UK government had undertaken with Harare over what she described as "deeply anti-democratic" developments.

Responding for the government, Lord Lemos said British officials, including the UK ambassador, had raised concerns directly with Zimbabwean authorities, but stressed that constitutional amendments remained "a sovereign legislative matter for Zimbabwe."

That position drew sharp criticism from across the chamber.

Baroness Hoey accused Zimbabwe's ruling ZANU-PF party of undermining democratic institutions and using repressive tactics against opponents, while warning that the proposed changes would weaken electoral accountability and judicial independence.

Other peers echoed concerns. Lord Callanan criticised what he described as muted diplomatic responses, while Lord Bruce of Bennachie said arguments in favour of the reforms reflected "utter contempt for democracy."

The Bishop of Southwark referenced concerns from the Zimbabwe Council of Churches, which has called for the proposed bill to be withdrawn or substantially revised.

Lord Howell of Guildford suggested that Zimbabwe's prospects of rejoining the Commonwealth would improve if leaders adhered to term limits and democratic norms.

The most severe allegations came from Lord Hain, who claimed corruption and illicit trade networks were deeply embedded in the state, including links to gold and tobacco smuggling.

Lord Lemos acknowledged ongoing concerns around corruption but said Zimbabwe had undertaken economic reforms and entered an IMF staff-monitored programme aimed at stabilising the economy.

He also argued that direct public condemnation had limited effectiveness, saying the UK now favoured behind-the-scenes diplomatic engagement rather than what he called "megaphone diplomacy."

Despite these reassurances, many peers expressed frustration, arguing that the UK's response lacked urgency given the perceived democratic risks.

The debate highlighted widening tensions in Westminster over how Britain should engage with Zimbabwe as it seeks improved international relations while facing mounting criticism over its internal political direction.