Opinion / Columnist
Has Paul Mangwana already forgotten what the constitution he helped draft says?
2 hrs ago |
29 Views
The game of smoke and mirrors continues to play out in Zimbabwe.
The spectacle witnessed at the ZANU-PF headquarters during today's press conference was nothing short of a masterclass in political amnesia.
If you value my social justice advocacy and writing, please consider a financial contribution to keep it going. Contact me on WhatsApp: +263 715 667 700 or Email: mbofana.tendairuben73@gmail.com
It is both tragic and deeply concerning to watch a man who was once at the very center of the constitutional reform process attempt to dismantle the very safeguards he helped erect.
Munyaradzi Paul Mangwana, who co-chaired the Constitution Select Committee that gave birth to the 2013 Constitution, seems to have developed a convenient case of selective memory regarding the supreme law of the land.
It has been roughly thirteen years since that document was finalized, but one would expect the lead architect to remember the weight-bearing walls of the structure he built.
Instead, we are treated to a narrative that seeks to gloss over the most fundamental protections of our democracy in favor of a narrow, partisan agenda.
During his address, Mangwana made a curious and glaring omission that cannot be ignored.
He claimed that there are three specific provisions in the Constitution that require a national referendum to amend.
However, he only managed to name two of them, which are the Declaration of Rights (Chapter 4) and Agricultural Land (Chapter 16).
This begs a critical question for the nation.
Did he truly forget what the third provision was, or was the omission a calculated move to avoid a topic that is currently very inconvenient for the ruling party?
The third provision that requires a referendum for amendment is, quite ironically, Section 328 itself.
This is the very section that governs how the Constitution is amended.
It is a self-protecting mechanism designed to ensure that the rules of the game cannot be changed by a simple parliamentary majority when those changes affect the core pillars of our governance.
By "forgetting" to mention Section 328, Mangwana is attempting to lead the public down a garden path where they believe a two-thirds majority in Parliament is a blank check for any whim the executive might have.
This is a dangerous distortion of the truth.
The Constitution is not a document that belongs to a political party, and its amendment is not a private matter for those who hold a temporary legislative advantage.
The inclusion of Section 328 in the list of items requiring a referendum was a deliberate choice by the drafters to prevent exactly what we are seeing today, which is the attempt to concentrate power and extend tenures without the direct and explicit consent of the Zimbabwean people.
Let us remind the former COPAC co-chair of what the Constitution actually says about the extension of a president's term in office.
Section 328 subsection 7 is perhaps the most vital sentence in the entire document when it comes to preventing the "life presidency" syndrome that has plagued so many nations.
It states in no uncertain terms that an amendment to a term-limit provision which has the effect of extending the length of time that a person may hold or occupy any public office does not apply in relation to any person who held or occupied that office at any time before the amendment was adopted.
This is a "poison pill" for any incumbent who wishes to benefit from a change they helped initiate.
This means that even if ZANU-PF were to use its majority to change the presidential term from five to seven years, or to scrap term limits altogether, that change cannot, by law, apply to the current President.
The law is clear.
If you change the term limit while you are in office, you must finish your current term under the old rules and step down.
You cannot be the beneficiary of your own legislative maneuvers.
This provision was inserted specifically to protect the country from leaders who would tailor the law to fit their personal ambitions.
For Mangwana to stand before the press and suggest that the party's majority is sufficient to extend the current administration's stay in power is to ignore the very ink he helped dry.
Furthermore, if the government truly wishes to allow an incumbent to benefit from such an extension, they would first have to amend Section 328 subsection 7 itself.
But here is the catch that Mangwana seems to have "forgotten."
According to Section 328(9), any amendment to Section 328 can only be passed if it is approved by a majority of voters in a national referendum – as if it were part of Chapter 4, the Declaration of Rights.
There is no shortcut.
There is no legal way to bypass the will of the people when it comes to extending the time a leader spends in the highest office.
No matter what those in power may want to characterize it as—whether lengthening a term or changing the electoral cycle—the law remains firm.
To suggest otherwise is not just a legal error, it is a direct assault on the intelligence of the Zimbabwean citizen.
The irony here is thick enough to choke on.
We have a drafter of the Constitution who now appears to understand the document less than the ordinary citizens he is addressing.
Across the country, in the streets of Harare, the townships of Bulawayo, and the rural homesteads of the Midlands, people are reading the Constitution.
They are highlighting Section 328.
They are discussing the limitations on executive power.
While the politicians at the party headquarters are busy trying to find loopholes, the people are standing on the solid ground of the law.
It is a remarkable state of affairs when the writer of a book needs to be corrected by his readers on the basic plot of the story.
Mangwana's attempt to frame this as a matter of "Vision 2030" or "national stability" is a tired trope.
Stability does not come from the indefinite rule of one individual or one group.
Real stability comes from the predictable and peaceful transfer of power according to the rules that everyone agreed upon in 2013.
The Constitution was a social contract between the state and the people.
When a lead drafter like Mangwana seeks to mislead the nation by omitting crucial legal requirements, he is breaking that contract.
He is taking advantage of his status as a "constitutional expert" to peddle a narrative that serves power rather than justice.
We must call this out for what it is.
This is not a misunderstanding of the law.
It is impossible for a man of Mangwana's experience and history to simply "forget" the most important safeguard against term-limit extensions.
This is a deliberate attempt to cloud the issue and pave the way for a constitutional violation under the guise of legality.
It is a strategy of taking advantage of the fact that he was there in the room when the document was born, hoping that his authority will silence any dissent.
But the words on the page are clear.
They do not change based on who is speaking at a podium.
In our local parlance, we have a term for this kind of behavior.
It is called "kunyepera kuzungaira."
It is the act of pretending to be confused, dizzy, or out of touch with reality when one knows exactly what is going on.
Mangwana is not confused.
He knows exactly what Section 328 says.
He knows exactly why the referendum requirement exists.
He knows exactly that the law forbids the current President from benefiting from any term extension.
Yet, he stands there and pretends that the path is clear for Amendment Bill Number 3 to sail through without the people's voice.
This pretense is an insult to the constitutional democracy we have struggled for decades to build.
The law belongs to the people of Zimbabwe, not to the drafters who have now decided that their own creation is too restrictive for their current political needs.
We will not be misled by those who pretend to have forgotten what they once swore to uphold.
©Tendai Ruben Mbofana is a social justice advocate and writer. To directly receive his articles please join his WhatsApp Channel on: https://whatsapp.com/channel/0029VaqprWCIyPtRnKpkHe08
The spectacle witnessed at the ZANU-PF headquarters during today's press conference was nothing short of a masterclass in political amnesia.
If you value my social justice advocacy and writing, please consider a financial contribution to keep it going. Contact me on WhatsApp: +263 715 667 700 or Email: mbofana.tendairuben73@gmail.com
It is both tragic and deeply concerning to watch a man who was once at the very center of the constitutional reform process attempt to dismantle the very safeguards he helped erect.
Munyaradzi Paul Mangwana, who co-chaired the Constitution Select Committee that gave birth to the 2013 Constitution, seems to have developed a convenient case of selective memory regarding the supreme law of the land.
It has been roughly thirteen years since that document was finalized, but one would expect the lead architect to remember the weight-bearing walls of the structure he built.
Instead, we are treated to a narrative that seeks to gloss over the most fundamental protections of our democracy in favor of a narrow, partisan agenda.
During his address, Mangwana made a curious and glaring omission that cannot be ignored.
He claimed that there are three specific provisions in the Constitution that require a national referendum to amend.
However, he only managed to name two of them, which are the Declaration of Rights (Chapter 4) and Agricultural Land (Chapter 16).
This begs a critical question for the nation.
Did he truly forget what the third provision was, or was the omission a calculated move to avoid a topic that is currently very inconvenient for the ruling party?
The third provision that requires a referendum for amendment is, quite ironically, Section 328 itself.
This is the very section that governs how the Constitution is amended.
It is a self-protecting mechanism designed to ensure that the rules of the game cannot be changed by a simple parliamentary majority when those changes affect the core pillars of our governance.
By "forgetting" to mention Section 328, Mangwana is attempting to lead the public down a garden path where they believe a two-thirds majority in Parliament is a blank check for any whim the executive might have.
This is a dangerous distortion of the truth.
The Constitution is not a document that belongs to a political party, and its amendment is not a private matter for those who hold a temporary legislative advantage.
The inclusion of Section 328 in the list of items requiring a referendum was a deliberate choice by the drafters to prevent exactly what we are seeing today, which is the attempt to concentrate power and extend tenures without the direct and explicit consent of the Zimbabwean people.
Let us remind the former COPAC co-chair of what the Constitution actually says about the extension of a president's term in office.
Section 328 subsection 7 is perhaps the most vital sentence in the entire document when it comes to preventing the "life presidency" syndrome that has plagued so many nations.
It states in no uncertain terms that an amendment to a term-limit provision which has the effect of extending the length of time that a person may hold or occupy any public office does not apply in relation to any person who held or occupied that office at any time before the amendment was adopted.
This is a "poison pill" for any incumbent who wishes to benefit from a change they helped initiate.
This means that even if ZANU-PF were to use its majority to change the presidential term from five to seven years, or to scrap term limits altogether, that change cannot, by law, apply to the current President.
The law is clear.
If you change the term limit while you are in office, you must finish your current term under the old rules and step down.
You cannot be the beneficiary of your own legislative maneuvers.
This provision was inserted specifically to protect the country from leaders who would tailor the law to fit their personal ambitions.
For Mangwana to stand before the press and suggest that the party's majority is sufficient to extend the current administration's stay in power is to ignore the very ink he helped dry.
Furthermore, if the government truly wishes to allow an incumbent to benefit from such an extension, they would first have to amend Section 328 subsection 7 itself.
But here is the catch that Mangwana seems to have "forgotten."
According to Section 328(9), any amendment to Section 328 can only be passed if it is approved by a majority of voters in a national referendum – as if it were part of Chapter 4, the Declaration of Rights.
There is no shortcut.
There is no legal way to bypass the will of the people when it comes to extending the time a leader spends in the highest office.
To suggest otherwise is not just a legal error, it is a direct assault on the intelligence of the Zimbabwean citizen.
The irony here is thick enough to choke on.
We have a drafter of the Constitution who now appears to understand the document less than the ordinary citizens he is addressing.
Across the country, in the streets of Harare, the townships of Bulawayo, and the rural homesteads of the Midlands, people are reading the Constitution.
They are highlighting Section 328.
They are discussing the limitations on executive power.
While the politicians at the party headquarters are busy trying to find loopholes, the people are standing on the solid ground of the law.
It is a remarkable state of affairs when the writer of a book needs to be corrected by his readers on the basic plot of the story.
Mangwana's attempt to frame this as a matter of "Vision 2030" or "national stability" is a tired trope.
Stability does not come from the indefinite rule of one individual or one group.
Real stability comes from the predictable and peaceful transfer of power according to the rules that everyone agreed upon in 2013.
The Constitution was a social contract between the state and the people.
When a lead drafter like Mangwana seeks to mislead the nation by omitting crucial legal requirements, he is breaking that contract.
He is taking advantage of his status as a "constitutional expert" to peddle a narrative that serves power rather than justice.
We must call this out for what it is.
This is not a misunderstanding of the law.
It is impossible for a man of Mangwana's experience and history to simply "forget" the most important safeguard against term-limit extensions.
This is a deliberate attempt to cloud the issue and pave the way for a constitutional violation under the guise of legality.
It is a strategy of taking advantage of the fact that he was there in the room when the document was born, hoping that his authority will silence any dissent.
But the words on the page are clear.
They do not change based on who is speaking at a podium.
In our local parlance, we have a term for this kind of behavior.
It is called "kunyepera kuzungaira."
It is the act of pretending to be confused, dizzy, or out of touch with reality when one knows exactly what is going on.
Mangwana is not confused.
He knows exactly what Section 328 says.
He knows exactly why the referendum requirement exists.
He knows exactly that the law forbids the current President from benefiting from any term extension.
Yet, he stands there and pretends that the path is clear for Amendment Bill Number 3 to sail through without the people's voice.
This pretense is an insult to the constitutional democracy we have struggled for decades to build.
The law belongs to the people of Zimbabwe, not to the drafters who have now decided that their own creation is too restrictive for their current political needs.
We will not be misled by those who pretend to have forgotten what they once swore to uphold.
©Tendai Ruben Mbofana is a social justice advocate and writer. To directly receive his articles please join his WhatsApp Channel on: https://whatsapp.com/channel/0029VaqprWCIyPtRnKpkHe08
Source - Tendai Ruben Mbofana
All articles and letters published on Bulawayo24 have been independently written by members of Bulawayo24's community. The views of users published on Bulawayo24 are therefore their own and do not necessarily represent the views of Bulawayo24. Bulawayo24 editors also reserve the right to edit or delete any and all comments received.
Join the discussion
Loading comments…