Zimbabwe MPs have become the criminals around the president

On June 9, 2026, the floor of Parliament became the front line for the future of Zimbabwean democracy.

As the government moved to advance Constitutional Amendment Bill 3 (CAB3), Edwin Mushoriwa, the Member of Parliament for Dzivaresekwa, rose not merely to debate a bill, but to issue a blistering indictment of what he termed "constitutional regression".

In a speech that was both a legal defense and a moral plea, Mushoriwa argued that the proposed changes represent a move away from the hard-won gains of the 2013 constitution.

He challenged the government's narrative that the bill seeks to improve governance, asserting instead that it is a transparent effort toward the "accumulation and preservation of political power".

Mushoriwa's critique was particularly sharp regarding the proposal to extend parliamentary terms to 2030, a move he described as an "insult" to the voters of Dzivaresekwa and an infringement on the rights of future political challengers.

Perhaps most provocatively, he flipped a historic Zimbabwean political trope on its head. Recalling the 2017 transition where the military claimed to be "targeting criminals surrounding the president," Mushoriwa suggested that today's legislators, by seeking to negate democratic ethos for personal longevity, have themselves become "the criminals surrounding the president."

At its core, Mushoriwa's address serves as a reminder that while politicians are temporary custodians of authority, the sovereignty of Zimbabwe resides solely with its people.

We publish the full transcript of this significant debate below, as a record of one representative's refusal to participate in what he calls the "dismantling of the democratic gains secured by Zimbabweans."

Madam Speaker,

Today is not merely another legislative day.

Today this House is being asked to decide whether we remain faithful custodians of the constitution of Zimbabwe or whether we become accomplices in its dismantling.

I rise to oppose this bill in its entirety.

I oppose it because it is unnecessary.

I oppose it because it is dangerous.

I oppose it because it is anti-democratic.

Most importantly, I oppose it because it seeks to reverse the gains that Zimbabweans fought for and secured through the 2013 constitution.

Madam Speaker, the minister asks us to believe that this bill is about improving governance.

It is not.

The minister asks us to believe that this bill is about constitutional development.

It is not. The minister wants us to believe that it is about national interest.

It is not.

This bill is about one thing and one thing alone which is the accumulation and preservation of political power*.

If this bill was truly about improving the lives of ordinary Zimbabweans, government would be amending the constitution to guarantee jobs, strengthen health care, improve education and protect citizens from poverty.

Instead, government has brought a bill whose beneficiaries are politicians.

The people get nothing.

Politicians get everything.

Madam Speaker, When Zimbabweans overwhelmingly adopted the 2013 constitution, they believed they had finally secured a constitutional settlement that would prevent the abuse of power that had characterised our politics for decades.

The constitution was meant to limit politicians.

Today politicians want to limit the constitution.

The constitution was designed to protect citizens from those in power.

Today those in power seek protection from the constitution.

That is the fundamental danger before us.

Madam Speaker, the minister repeatedly says constitutions are living documents.

Indeed they are.

But living documents are supposed to evolve forward, not backward.

Progress is moving from less democracy to more democracy.

Progress is moving from concentrated power to distributed power.

Progress is moving from rulers controlling citizens to citizens controlling rulers.

This bill takes us in the opposite direction.

It is not constitutional evolution.

It is constitutional regression.

It is a journey backwards.

Madam Speaker,

One of the most offensive aspects of this bill is the assumption that politicians know better than the people.

At every turn this bill removes power from citizens and transfers it to politicians.

The people are told they can no longer be trusted to directly choose their president.

Politicians will decide.

The people are told they must wait longer before they can hold leaders accountable through elections.

Politicians have decided.

The people are told constitutional safeguards are obstacles.

Politicians have decided.

What arrogance!

What constitutional betrayal!

The sovereignty of Zimbabwe does not reside in this Parliament.

The sovereignty of Zimbabwe resides in the people.

We are merely temporary custodians of authority entrusted to us by citizens.

We do not own Zimbabwe.

We do not own the constitution.

We do not own the future.

Madam Speaker,

Every generation of politicians faces a temptation.

The temptation to believe that because they possess numbers today, they possess legitimacy forever.

History teaches us otherwise.

Parliamentary majorities come and go.

Governments come and go.

Political parties rise and fall.

But constitutions endure.

That is why constitutions must never be manipulated to suit the temporary interests of those occupying public office.

The constitution must be bigger than politicians.

The constitution must outlive politicians.

The constitution must restrain politicians.

Madam Speaker, The minister speaks of stability.

I find that argument deeply troubling.

Throughout history, attacks on democracy have always been justified in the name of stability.

The answer to every democratic demand has been: "We need stability."

The answer to every demand for accountability has been: "We need stability."

The answer to every demand for citizen participation has been: "We need stability."

But true stability does not come from extending political power.

True stability comes from constitutional legitimacy.

True stability comes from free and fair elections.

True stability comes from accountable leadership.

True stability comes from citizens believing that the rules apply equally to everyone.

Madam Speaker,

Zimbabwe has many pressing problems.

Citizens are struggling to survive.

Young people are searching for opportunities.

Businesses are battling economic uncertainty.

Public services require urgent attention.

Yet government's constitutional priority is not solving these challenges.

Its priority is altering the rules of politics.

That tells us everything we need to know.

Madam Speaker,

There is a profound difference between constitutional reform and constitutional manipulation.

Constitutional reform strengthens democracy.

Constitutional manipulation strengthens politicians.

Constitutional reform empowers citizens.

Constitutional manipulation empowers office holders.

Constitutional reform expands accountability.

Constitutional manipulation reduces accountability.

CAB3 falls squarely into the second category.

Madam Speaker, Years ago Zimbabweans were promised a "new dispensation."

They were promised democratic renewal.

They were promised constitutionalism.

They were promised respect for institutions.

Yet today we are being asked to support amendments that undermine the very constitutional principles that Zimbabweans were promised would be protected.

The tragedy is not merely that government has brought this Bill.

The tragedy is that some who once defended constitutionalism are now defending constitutional erosion.

Some who once demanded limits on power now seek to expand power.

Some who once fought for democratic reforms now seek to dilute democratic safeguards.

History will record these contradictions.

Madam Speaker, Future generations will ask what we did when the constitution was placed under threat.

They will ask whether we defended the people's charter or surrendered it.

They will ask whether we stood for constitutionalism or political convenience.

They will ask whether we defended democracy or weakened it.

My answer today is clear and the people of Dzivaresekwa should know .

I refuse to participate in the dismantling of the democratic gains secured by Zimbabweans.

I refuse to endorse constitutional changes that weaken citizen sovereignty.

I refuse to support amendments that place political interests above national interests.

This bill represents a retreat from constitutional democracy.

It represents a retreat from accountability.

It represents a retreat from the aspirations of the Zimbabwean people.

Dzivaresekwa people elected me on  August 23, 2023 for a five year term until September 3, 2028. 

To extend my term without their consent is an insult to them.

The candidates I defeated in primary elections in 2023 desire the chance to challenge for 2028 and equally those from Zanu PF that I defeated in general elections also want a chance to contest as candidates for Dzivaresekwa in 2028. 

Extending our term to 2030 is an infringement on their rights.

Madame Speaker in 2017 the second republic was birthed when one day men in army uniforms told us that the president was safe and they were targeting criminals surrounding the president.  Today we are the criminals surrounding the president.  

President Emmerson Dambudzo Mnangagwa has had a stellar public life. He has served in various ministries as a minister.

He has been a speaker and one of the best. He was a vce president and now president in his second term.

In total he has been in office for more than 45 years . Surely, I do not think he would want more years but it is us parliamentarians who have become criminals surrounding him.

We speak of projects that need to be completed, but indeed it is our desire to negate democratic ethos and remain in Parliament outside the mandate of people.

For those reasons, Madam Speaker, I reject this bill in its entirety and urge this House to do likewise.

The constitution belongs to the people. It must remain with the people.

I thank you.