Zimbabwe is facing the most severe constitutional rupture since the 2013 constitution was adopted, following Cabinet’s endorsement of draft legislation that would strip citizens of the right to directly elect their president and extend Emmerson Mnangagwa’s tenure until 2030.
The proposed Constitution of Zimbabwe Amendment Bill, 2026, backed by Cabinet on Tuesday, has created a wave of condemnation from constitutional lawyers, civil society and opposition figures who warned the government is diminishing public trust while simultaneously denying voters their sovereign voice.
The Bill, tabled by Justice Minister Ziyambi Ziyambi, would repeal Section 92 of the Constitution, replacing direct presidential elections with a parliamentary vote, with a successful candidate requiring a ‘simple’ majority of sitting MPs and senators.
Simultaneously, the Bill extends presidential and parliamentary terms from five to seven years, explicitly applying the extension to the “continuation in office” of the incumbent
If enacted in its current form, the amendments would allow President Mnangagwa, 83, to remain in office until 2030 yet he is supposed to step down in 2028 after serving two five-year terms.
The justice minister told journalists the Bill would be transmitted to the Speaker of Parliament and published in the Government Gazette before lawmakers debate it.
Beyond extending terms and altering the electoral system, the proposed amendments would also change presidential succession. Instead of a vice president automatically assuming office in the event of death, resignation or removal, Parliament would elect a new president within a specified period.
Apart from the extension clause, it is the proposed removal of direct presidential elections that has triggered the strongest reaction because it represents a sudden disenfranchisement of millions of Zimbabweans who have voted directly for their president since independence.
Douglas Mwonzora, who participated in the constitution-making process under the Government of National Unity (GNU) as one of the MDC negotiators in 2009, described the proposal as unnecessary and dangerous.
“Two fundamental issues arise. The sudden disenfranchisement of millions of Zimbabweans when it comes to choosing the president, there is no purpose served in making that amendment,” Mwonzora said.
He argued the current proposed system was not the country’s problem.
“The problem of Zimbabweans was not about how to elect a president. They are fixing something which has no need to be fixed,” he said.
“In the process, they are removing the power of the people to decide who their president is.”
Mwonzora warned that changing the source of presidential authority creates a legitimacy dilemma.
“A system of direct elections means a president derives power directly from the masses. If he is chosen by 360 people in Parliament, he cannot retain the same powers. That is another problem.”
He also raised concerns over what he called an inherent conflict of interest.
“If we leave it like this, it is asking a very interested body called Parliament, made up of people who directly benefit from the extension to pass the Bill, to be signed into law by a president who directly benefits individually. That is a serious conflict of interest.”
Whether the Bill will be subjected to a referendum remains unclear.
However, Mwonzora insisted constitutional safeguards require public participation.
“There is still a need for a referendum,” he said.
“In fact, two referendums may be required so that Zimbabwean people can decide for themselves what they want.”
Section 328(7) of the Constitution, stipulates that changes to presidential term limits require approval through a referendum.
Moreover, even if term limits are extended, the Constitution provides that such changes should not benefit the incumbent unless approved in a person-specific referendum.
“It is important for civil society, political parties and Zimbabweans across political divides to defend the right of people to choose,” Mwonzora said.
The proposed shift to a parliamentary presidential election has also raised structural concerns.
Legal analyst, Dr Vusumuzi Sibanda, said countries where presidents are elected by Parliament typically operate under proportional representation (PR) systems to provide broader representation.
“The bulk of countries that have a president voted for by Parliament have proportional representation as an electoral system,” Sibanda said.
“Everyone is represented, it is not a winner-takes-all situation.”
Zimbabwe currently operates largely under a first-past-the-post system, where the candidate with the most votes in a constituency wins, even without an absolute majority.
“In a winner-takes-all system, someone can win by one vote,” Sibanda said.
“For example, you can have 49 999 people voting one way and 50 000 the other way, and the 49 999 are not represented.”
Dr Sibanda argued that without proportional representation, electing a president through Parliament could significantly narrow democratic legitimacy.
“You could end up with a president effectively backed by a minority of the population,” he said. “If MPs are voting and those MPs were elected under a winner-takes-all system, it does not necessarily mean they represent the majority of citizens.”
Sibanda suggested the ruling Zanu PF party may be “recalibrating” its strategy amid internal succession tensions and shifting electoral dynamics.
“Zanu PF knows it will just go and cook results and ultimately have the majority in Parliament. As long as they have a majority by one, they control the presidency,” he said.
“They are realising they may not necessarily have a two-thirds majority anymore, so they are saying, ‘let’s make sure the president is voted for by MPs. Let’s change the system.”
Sibanda also questioned whether 2030 would mark the end of the road for President Mnangagwa.
“Does he have intentions of stepping down in 2030? I doubt,” he said.
Beyond political calculations, the proposed amendments come at a time when public trust in state institutions is widely viewed as fragile.
Against this backdrop, critics are asking how the government expects citizens to trust a president they no longer elect directly.
“Has the government assessed the risk of public backlash or a legitimacy crisis arising from these changes? How do they justify extending terms when voters elected leaders on a five-year mandate?” asked Iphithule Maphosa.
Support CITE’s fearless, independent journalism. Your donation helps us amplify community voices, fight misinformation, and hold power to account. Help keep the truth alive. Donate today