By Agencies
President Emmerson Mnangagwa is facing intense pressure from civil society, opposition parties, and legal experts to subject the controversial Constitutional Amendment Bill No. 3 (CAB3) to a national referendum.
Despite growing demands for a public vote, the government and the ruling ZANU-PF party continue to resist holding a national plebiscite.
CAB3 extends the current presidential, parliamentary, and local authority terms by two years, pushing the next general election from 2028 to 2030. The bill seeks to abolish the direct popular vote for the presidency, allowing Parliament to elect the Head of State. It also lengthens standard presidential terms from five to seven years.
Civic organizations like WeThePeople and legal experts point to Section 328 of the Zimbabwean Constitution, which states that any amendment extending term limits cannot legally benefit an incumbent without a national referendum.
Critics have reminded Mnangagwa of his famous 2017 slogan, “the voice of the people is the voice of God,” arguing that the ultimate expression of this principle is a public vote.
Prominent opposition figures like Nelson Chamisa have slammed the bill, accusing the ruling party of bribing legislators to force the bill through.
A group of military veterans led by law professor Dr. Lovemore Madhuku has filed a challenge in the Constitutional Court, arguing Mnangagwa’s promotion of a bill that directly benefits him is unconstitutional. The Zimbabwe Catholic Bishops’ Conference also formally condemned the bill as a threat to institutional foundations.
The push has deepened a fierce succession power struggle within ZANU-PF between Mnangagwa’s loyalists and supporters of Vice President Constantino Chiwenga.
The bill has cleared both houses of Parliament, including a recent Senate vote where 23 opposition senators controversially voted alongside ZANU-PF. The legislation now strictly awaits Mnangagwa’s signature to become law. While government representatives argue that earlier public consultations were sufficient, activists maintain that signing the bill without a referendum marks a severe erosion of democracy
