On February 16, 2026, the Zimbabwean government gazetted the Constitution of Zimbabwe (Amendment) Bill No 3, a move that has been met with widespread criticism. The bill extends presidential and parliamentary terms from five years to seven, effectively moving the next election from 2028 to 2030. This change has been seen as a power grab by the ruling party, which holds a two-thirds parliamentary majority required to pass the bill. The bill's provisions have been described as a legislative coup dressed in parliamentary robes.
The bill abolishes direct presidential elections, replacing the popular vote with selection by a joint sitting of Parliament. This change has been criticized as a threat to democracy, as it allows the ruling party to choose the president without input from the people. Additionally, the bill allows a sitting president to appoint the Chief Justice and the head of the anti-corruption commission, further consolidating power in the hands of the executive. The bill also makes "unauthorized communication" with foreign entities a crime, where the government decides what "unauthorized" means.
The bill's provisions are not only a threat to democracy but also have significant implications for Zimbabwe's citizens. The bill is retroactive, applying to the current President, Emmerson Mnangagwa, and the current Parliament, effectively extending Mnangagwa's term until 2030. This directly contradicts Section 328(7) of the 2013 Constitution, which explicitly prohibits term extensions for a sitting president. The bill's passage has been seen as a ratchet that only turns one way: tighter.
The ruling party's justification for the bill is that it reduces "election mode toxicity," aligns with Vision 2030, and gives the government sufficient time to complete long-term projects. However, these justifications have been criticized as flimsy. The Minister of Justice has stated that the bill simply "elongates the electoral cycle" to ensure economic stability and reduce election-related fatigue. Critics argue that if a government cannot deliver in five years, it should face the voters, not erase them.
The bill's impact on Zimbabwe's citizens is not limited to the political sphere. The country's economy has been struggling, with over 2 million citizens living abroad as economic exiles. The country's health system is also collapsing, and the currency has been officially redenominated three times. The bill's passage has been seen as the final battalion: the battalion of fear. The bill tells young Zimbabweans that asking why their currency fails is sedition, and it tells alumni of programs like Canon Collins that their critical thinking is a foreign conspiracy.
The international community has taken note of Zimbabwe's moves, with some countries' constitutions protecting the right to protest and an independent judiciary. South Africa's Constitution, despite its real failures, still protects these rights. Botswana's High Court recently ruled against the government on a land rights case. Zambia voted out a sitting president in 2021 without a single tank on the streets. Zimbabwe's actions have been seen as a departure from the norm.
The author of the essay, Sandas Madziva, has a personal stake in the issue. As a scholar, Madziva notes that their grandmother risked everything to hide a young neighbor from the Rhodesian security forces in 1978. This experience has shaped Madziva's perspective on the bill, which aims to capture the minds of Zimbabweans. The bill's passage has significant implications for Zimbabwe's future, and it remains to be seen how the country will navigate this new reality.
Key points
- The bill's provisions have been criticized as a threat to democracy.
- The bill's passage has significant implications for Zimbabwe's citizens, including the extension of presidential and parliamentary terms.
- The international community has taken note of Zimbabwe's moves, with some countries' constitutions protecting the right to protest and an independent judiciary.
