There is no constitutional loophole

The opinion that a constitutional loophole exists to extend the presidential term for an incumbent is not the discovery of a clever legal pathway; it is a constitutional fantasy. The proposition dangerously conflates creative wordplay with legal reality and represents a frontal assault on the foundational principles of the Republic of Zimbabwe.

The argument's core, distinguishing an "insertion" from an "amendment"; is a semantic game. Any change that alters the Constitution's legal effect is an amendment and is therefore subject to the full, unyielding rigour of Section 328. Likewise, the phrase "...except as otherwise provided..." in Section 95 is not a procedural backdoor; it is a standard drafting tool for internal consistency, not an open invitation to override the definitive five-year term at will.  

Crucially, both the duration of a term (Section 95) and the number of terms (Section 91) are indivisible "term-limit provisions". Any attempt to extend the term's length runs directly into the constitutional fortress built by Section 328. 

1. The Anti-Incumbent Firewall: Section 328(7) is absolute and unambiguous. It explicitly prohibits an amendment extending a term limit from applying to "any person who held or occupied that office... at any time before the amendment". This clause was purpose-built to stop precisely this kind of self-serving maneuver.   

2. The Referendum Double-Lock: To bypass this firewall, one would have to amend Section 328(7) itself. This triggers the double-lock mechanism in Section 328(9), which subjects any such change to the highest possible procedural hurdle: a national referendum, the same required to amend the Declaration of Rights.   

Finally, beyond these insurmountable procedural barriers, such a scheme would be a profound violation of the Constitution's foundational spirit. The principles of "regular elections" and "the orderly transfer of power" enshrined in Section 3 are not mere suggestions. An amendment that seeks to destroy these core tenets could be challenged as an "unconstitutional constitutional amendment"—an act that mutilates the very identity of our national charter.  

The notion of a loophole is, therefore, a legal absurdity. The Constitution is not a flimsy document to be bent by political ambition; it is a fortress, deliberately constructed with layered defences. Any attempt to proceed down this path is an act of constitutional vandalism, destined to fail before any court committed to upholding the supreme law of the land.