A proposal to extend the term of elected officials from five to seven years under Constitutional Amendment Bill No. 3 has raised concerns that voters may have to wait longer to hold councillors accountable for poor service delivery.
The Bill, which is under consideration, seeks to lengthen the terms of the President and Members of Parliament elected in the 2023 harmonised elections. While it does not expressly mention councillors, legal experts say the changes could automatically apply to local authorities.
Supporters argue the extension would reduce what they call perpetual “election mode”, allowing more time for policy implementation and national stability. But critics warn it could weaken democratic accountability, particularly at local level, where residents frequently complain about refuse collection, water shortages and crumbling infrastructure.
Constitutional and human rights lawyer Vusumuzi Sibanda said the implications of the Bill stretch beyond national office bearers.
“I think since elections are harmonised, this means the councillors also stay for another additional two years and their cycle is also changed to seven years in principle,” he said.
He added that although the Bill does not expressly amend provisions relating to councillors, the omission could trigger legal challenges.
“The question might arise on the express amendment of sections dealing with councillors which has not been included, but that could be used in court to argue that separate local elections would be required, which would be costly,” he said.
Another constitutional lawyer, Musa Kika, pointed to Section 278 of the Constitution, which links the tenure of councillors to that of Members of Parliament.
“What it means is the drafters of this Bill realised they did not need to make an explicit provision for councillors because whatever applies to Members of Parliament in terms of the end of their tenure applies to councillors,” he said.
“If MPs move to seven years, councillors would also do seven years.”
That interpretation suggests councillors elected in 2023 could remain in office until 2030 without seeking a fresh mandate from voters.
The Mayor of City of Bulawayo, David Coltart, said the proposed changes would effectively lengthen councillors’ time in office and should therefore be subjected to a referendum.
“The Urban Councils Act is silent about the term in office and so they will argue that councillors will automatically remain in office until the next harmonised election,” he said.
“I don’t disagree with such an interpretation, but because the effect of the amendment is to lengthen a councillor’s time in office, then as incumbents that is prohibited and, if changed, that change must be subjected to a referendum.”
Mr Coltart has publicly rejected proposals that could see him remain in office beyond his five-year mandate, describing the amendment as self-serving and disconnected from the interests of citizens.
“This amendment won’t just benefit the President but also mayors, councillors and MPs,” he wrote on X. “It is nothing about the interests of the people – it is simply about the interests of all in the political elite who were elected by the people for five years, but who will now have jobs and perks for at least another two years.”
He said his tenure as mayor would end five years after his election, regardless of any changes to the Constitution that are not endorsed through what he described as a lawful and fair referendum.
His stance was echoed by councillor Denford Ngadziore, who said his mandate runs until 2028 and cannot be altered through political processes.
“Constitution is the supreme law,” he said.