Zanu-PF's campaign to extend President Emmerson Mnangagwa's tenure beyond the constitutionally mandated two terms has intensified, with senior party officials increasingly vocal in their calls for a 2030 exit date.
At the ruling party's annual people's conference in Mutare last month, delegates adopted Resolution No. 1, which proposes extending Mnangagwa's term by an additional two years. The idea was first raised at the previous conference in Bulawayo, but party structures now appear more coordinated and assertive in their advocacy.
Two weeks ago, Zanu-PF ministers and Members of Parliament were seen celebrating in Parliament, singing that "the job had been done", in what observers interpreted as a sign of confidence in the success of the extension campaign.
In recent days, several senior party figures have publicly urged citizens to support the push, fuelling speculation that the campaign is centrally sanctioned rather than the work of isolated groups or individuals.
President Mnangagwa has repeatedly stated that he does not seek a third term. During a meeting with Zimbabweans in China last year, he described himself as a "constitutionalist" who would abide by the national charter, reaffirming earlier statements made in 2018 that he would step down after completing two terms.
However, his silence in the face of his party's growing campaign has raised questions about his stance. Analysts argue that if the President opposed the initiative, he would publicly distance himself from it.
Zimbabwe's 2013 Constitution, adopted through a broad national consensus, limits presidents to two five-year terms. The charter was designed to prevent prolonged incumbency and promote predictable political transitions.
Critics warn that attempts to amend the Constitution for the benefit of a sitting President could undermine democratic safeguards, weaken state institutions and trigger political instability.
Zanu-PF officials maintain that the proposal reflects grassroots sentiment, while opposition groups and civil society organisations argue that any attempt to extend the President's term threatens constitutionalism.
Legal experts note that altering presidential term limits would require a constitutional amendment supported by a two-thirds majority in Parliament and, depending on the nature of the change, possibly a national referendum.
As debate continues, the responsibility lies with the President to clarify his position. For now, his silence has been interpreted variously as caution, consent or strategic ambiguity.
The Constitution remains the property of the people, and any amendment to its core provisions is expected to trigger broad national scrutiny and debate.
- Newsday
Editor's Pick