Human rights lawyer, Doug Coltart, has warned that amendments made by the Senate to the Constitutional Amendment Bill No. 3 (CAB3) could create a loophole that allows future elections to be postponed indefinitely.
Coltart made the warning in a legal opinion addressed to all Members of the National Assembly just hours before Parliament accepted the changes proposed by the Senate last week when it agreed to the new legislation on June 24, 2026.
Legislators approved the Bill by 226 votes to 41
In the opinion, Coltart stressed that his concerns were not about the overall merits of the Bill but about what he described as a drafting flaw introduced through the Senate’s amendments.
On this topic
According to Coltart, the Bill’s current wording creates a credible legal argument that a President elected by Parliament to fill a vacancy arising from the death, resignation or removal of a sitting President could begin a fresh seven-year presidential term instead of merely completing the remainder of the predecessor’s tenure.
He argued that because the Bill also links the life of Parliament to the President’s assumption of office, such an interpretation could effectively restart both the presidential and parliamentary terms, delaying the next harmonised elections.
“The constitutional loophole could be repeatedly exploited indefinitely with the result that Zimbabwe may never have a general election ever again,” Coltart wrote.
While acknowledging the courts could ultimately reject such an interpretation, Coltart argued that constitutional legislation should not leave room for uncertainty on issues as fundamental as presidential tenure and the timing of elections.
He explained the current Constitution draws a distinction between a President elected following a general election and one who assumes office after a vacancy occurs during a term.
Under the existing framework, a replacement President serves only the unexpired portion of the predecessor’s term, ensuring that the constitutional electoral cycle remains unchanged.
However, Coltart said the Senate amendments repeal Section 94(3), which currently provides the constitutional mechanism for a successor President to assume office, while simultaneously amending Section 101 to allow Parliament to elect a replacement President whenever a vacancy arises.
According to Coltart, removing the separate succession provision means every President, including one elected by Parliament midway through a term, would assume office under the same constitutional mechanism, potentially enabling that President to claim an entirely new seven-year mandate.
To illustrate the potential consequences, Coltart presented a hypothetical scenario in which a President resigns shortly before the expiry of a term. Parliament elects a successor, who then argues that assuming office entitles them to a fresh seven-year term. Since Parliament’s term would also be linked to the President’s assumption of office, the next general election could be postponed.
He warned the same process could theoretically be repeated before every scheduled election, effectively allowing future governments to extend their tenure indefinitely without returning to the electorate.
Coltart said the legal opinion had been prepared “on behalf of all Members of the National Assembly, including both the proponents and opponents” of the Bill because he believed the drafting problem may have been unintended.
To address the issue, he proposed two amendments.
The first is to retain Section 94(3), rather than repeal it, while modifying it to reflect Parliament’s proposed role in electing a replacement President.
The second is to amend the proposed Section 101 to expressly state that any President elected to fill a vacancy serves only the remainder of the former President’s term and that such an election does not commence a new presidential or parliamentary term or alter the date of the next general election.
“The Senate amendments have identified a genuine constitutional issue but do not resolve it. On the contrary, they have introduced an extremely dangerous loophole,” Coltart said.
Coltart had urged legislators to correct the drafting before the constitutional amendment was finalised, arguing that constitutional provisions governing presidential succession and election cycles must be drafted with precision to prevent unintended legal consequences.
Leave a Reply