Can a president who goes back on his word ever be trusted?

Trust, like the soul, never returns once it is gone.


When a nation's leader repeatedly looks into the eyes of his citizens and pledges absolute fidelity to the supreme law of the land, his word becomes the ultimate currency of governance.

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

For years, President Emmerson Mnangagwa masterfully cultivated the image of a disciplined constitutionalist, missing no opportunity to remind both the people of Zimbabwe and the international community that he was a strict adherent to legal boundaries.

When overzealous sycophants within his party began chanting slogans championing an extension of his rule, he publicly rebuked the sycophancy, confidently declaring that he would pass on the baton and retire when his tenure concluded.

These were not casual, off-the-cuff remarks; they were firm, unambiguous commitments designed to assure a skeptical nation that the dark days of life-presidency were firmly in the past.

The precision of his promises makes the reality of today impossible to ignore.

Speaking at the commissioning of a fruit juice plant in Mutare, Mnangagwa made his intentions unmistakably clear.

He explicitly stated, “I am in my second term, which is my final term. After that, I will go and rest. We have a constitution which we must follow. Our constitution says after every five years we go to elections, and a president can only serve for two terms.”

He went even further to assure party structures, declaring that his term as president ends in 2028, he had no intention of serving beyond this period, and he would serve his two five-year terms and then pass on the baton.

These declarations pinned his political identity directly to the specific five-year limits established by the 2013 Constitution, explicitly linking his exit to the calendar year 2028.

Yet, yesterday, the mask of constitutionalism completely slipped.

By signing the Constitution of Zimbabwe Amendment (No 3) Act, 2026 into law, Mnangagwa did exactly the opposite of everything he had spent years assuring the world he would do.

The enactment of this law, which extends presidential, parliamentary, and local council terms from five to seven years, represents a profound betrayal of public trust.

Yet, despite repeatedly assuring us that he was a constitutionalist, he never wasted any time signing into amendments that extended the length of time he occupied the presidency.

This was done in spite of Section 328(7) barring the incumbent from benefiting, and the only way to remove this provision being through a national referendum, which was never held.

Instead, through transitional clauses slipped into the legislation, the administration granted itself a two-year extension without ever facing the electorate, effectively shifting the departure date from 2028 to 2030.

This breathtaking turn of events forces us to confront a fundamental and deeply unsettling question: if a head of state can so effortlessly go back on his word regarding the supreme law of the land, how can he ever be trusted on any other matter?

Trust is the bedrock upon which the contract between the governor and the governed is built, and when that trust is shattered at the highest level of leadership, it sends shockwaves through every sector of society.

The citizens of Zimbabwe are left to wonder what other promises will be cast aside when convenience demands it.

If the constitution can be rewritten and entrenched clauses ignored to suit personal ambition, what stops the administration from abandoning its pledges on economic stability, institutional accountability, public service delivery, or the protection of fundamental human rights?

The implications of this broken promise stretch far beyond the halls of parliament.

By prioritizing the consolidation of power over constitutional integrity, the leadership has signaled that individual longevity outweighs institutional stability.

A true constitutionalist does not bend the law to fit his desires; he bends his desires to fit the law.

When a leader permits the rewriting of rules and the subversion of mandatory referendums to extend his own tenure, the very foundation of predictable, democratic governance is completely undermined.

Zimbabweans are now forced to navigate an environment where political survival supersedes the national interest, and where executive declarations carry little value.

If a solemn oath to uphold the highest law can be discarded so easily, then no promise made to the nation can ever be taken seriously again.

The tragic reality is that when words lose their meaning, a nation loses its moral anchor, leaving citizens to watch as personal ambition triumphs over democratic accountability.

- Advertise your business, products, or services on my WhatsApp Channel with over 10k followers. For bookings, contact me on WhatsApp: +263 715 667 700 or Email: mbofana.tendairuben73@gmail.com