For
well
over
a
year
the
President
has
been
urged
by
some
sections
of
his
party
to
stand
for
a
third
term
in
office
after
his
current
term
expires
in
2028.
The
calls
for
him
to
remain
in
office
culminated
in
a
resolution
at
the
party’s
recent
national
conference
in
Mutare
that
the
President’s
term
should
be
extended
by
two
years
to
2030,
and
that:
“The
party
and
government
are
therefore
directed
to
initiate
the
requisite
legislative
amendments
to
give
full
effect
to
this
resolution
to
ensure
continuity,
stability
and
the
sustained
transformation
of
the
nation.”
In
this
bulletin
we
shall
examine
what
constitutional
changes
would
have
to
take
place
for
the
President
to
be
allowed
to
serve
after
2028.
Would
a
Constitutional
Amendment
be
Necessary?
The
first
point
to
make
is
that
the
Constitution
would
need
to
be
amended
before
the
President’s
current
term
could
be
extended
or
the
President
could
be
allowed
to
serve
another
term
in
office.
According
to
section
91(2)
of
the
Constitution:
“A
person
is
disqualified
for
election
as
President
or
appointment
as
Vice-President
if
he
or
she
has
already
held
office
as
President
for
two
terms,
whether
continuous
or
not,
and
for
the
purpose
of
this
subsection
three
or
more
years’
service
is
deemed
to
be
a
full
term.”
By
the
time
of
the
next
general
election
in
2028,
President
Mnangagwa
will
have
served
two
full
terms
in
office,
so
he
will
not
be
eligible
to
stand
for
election
as
President
or
Vice-President.
Hence,
as
we
have
said,
the
Constitution
would
have
to
be
amended
if
he
is
to
be
allowed
to
do
so.
One
lawyer
has
suggested
that
the
Presidential
term
might
be
extended
from
five
years
to
seven
years
to
enable
Mr
Mnangagwa
to
serve
until
2030,
but
once
again
the
Constitution
would
have
to
be
amended
to
achieve
this
because
section
95(1)
fixes
length
of
the
President’s
term
of
office
at
five
years.
So
whichever
device
is
used
to
allow
the
President
to
remain
in
office,
a
constitutional
amendment
would
be
necessary.
Which
provisions
of
the
Constitution
would
need
to
be
amended?
Amendment
of
Section
91
The
first
and
most
obvious
amendment
would
be
to
section
91,
which
as
we
have
seen
sets
out
the
current
presidential
term-limit.
The
amendment
would
entail
repealing
section
91(2)
(if
it
is
decided
to
scrap
presidential
term-limits
altogether)
or
changing
the
words
“two
terms”
to
“three
terms”,
“four
terms”
or
however
many
terms
a
President
will
be
allowed
to
serve
(if
it
is
decided
to
extend
the
number
of
terms
rather
than
scrap
the
limits
completely).
Amendment
of
section
95
If
it
is
decided
to
lengthen
the
presidential
term
from
five
to
seven
years,
then
section
95(1)
of
the
Constitution
would
have
to
be
amended,
because
it
provides
that
the
length
of
the
President’s
term
of
office
is:
“five
years
and
coterminous
with
the
life
of
Parliament”.
The
words
“five
years”
would
need
to
be
changed
to
“seven
years”
and
the
words
“coterminous
with
the
life
of
Parliament
would
have
to
be
deleted
unless
the
life
of
Parliament
is
also
to
be
extended
to
seven
years.
An
extension
of
the
life
of
Parliament
would
involve
further
constitutional
amendments,
this
time
to
sections
143(1)
and
158(1),
which
fix
the
life
of
Parliament
at
five
years.
The
steps
needed
to
amend
these
section
–
i.e.
sections
91,
95,
143
and
158
–
are
set
out
in
section
328
of
the
Constitution:
-
The
Speaker
must
publish
“the
precise
terms”
of
the
proposed
amendment
in
the
Gazette,
and
the
amendment
cannot
be
introduced
in
Parliament
until
90
days
after
that
publication
[section
328(3)]. -
The
staff
of
Parliament
must
immediately
invite
the
public
to
comment
on
the
proposed
amendment,
through
written
submissions
and
public
hearings
convened
by
Parliament
[section
328(4)].
In
practice
these
hearings
are
convened
by
the
Portfolio
Committee
on
Justice,
Legal
and
Parliamentary
Affairs,
and
written
submissions
from
the
public
are
sent
to
that
Committee. -
The
Bill
containing
the
amendment
must
be
passed
by
a
two-thirds
majority
at
its
final
reading
[i.e.
the
Third
Reading]
in
both
the
National
Assembly
and
the
Senate,
and
when
the
Bill
is
sent
to
the
President
for
assent
the
Speaker
and
presiding
officer
of
the
Senate
must
certify
that
it
has
received
the
requisite
majorities
[section
328(5)
and
(10)
of
the
Constitution]. -
If
these
steps
are
taken,
the
Constitution
will
be
amended
to
allow
a
President
to
serve
more
than
two
terms
in
office.
There
is
a
catch,
however:
the
amendments
will
not
apply
to
President
Mnangagwa.
Section
328(7)
of
the
Constitution
The
reason
why
the
amendments
would
not
apply
to
President
Mnangagwa
lies
in
section
328(7),
which
was
designed
to
make
it
difficult
for
incumbent
office-holders
(particularly
Presidents)
to
extend
their
terms
of
office.
It
states:
“Notwithstanding
any
other
provision
of
this
section,
an
amendment
to
a
term-limit
provision,
the
effect
of
which
is
to
extend
the
length
of
time
that
a
person
may
hold
or
occupy
any
public
office,
does
not
apply
in
relation
to
any
person
who
held
or
occupied
that
office,
or
an
equivalent
office,
at
any
time
before
the
amendment.”
The
phrase
“term-limit
provision”
is
defined
in
section
328(1)
as
meaning:
“a
provision
of
this
Constitution
which
limits
the
length
of
time
that
a
person
may
hold
or
occupy
a
public
office.”
Sections
91(2)
and
95(2)
are
both
term-limit
provisions
according
to
this
definition.
What
all
this
means,
put
simply,
is
that
an
amendment
to
section
91
or
95
of
the
Constitution
extending
the
number
of
terms
that
a
President
can
serve
or
increasing
the
length
of
presidential
terms
will
apply
only
to
future
Presidents.
It
will
not
allow
an
incumbent
or
past
President
to
extend
the
period
he
may
hold
presidential
office.
So
if
section
91
or
95
were
amended
by
following
the
steps
we
outlined
above,
President
Mnangagwa
could
not
benefit
from
the
amendment
and
could
not
legally
be
elected
for
a
third
term
or
continue
serving
an
extra
two
years
of
his
current
term.
To
enable
him
to
be
elected
for
a
third
term
or
to
serve
an
extra
two
years,
section
328(7)
itself
would
have
to
be
amended
or
repealed.
To
do
this,
a
Bill
amending
or
repealing
section
328(7)
would
have
to
go
through
all
the
steps
we
outlined
above
–
the
Bill
would
have
to
be
published
in
the
Gazette
for
90
days,
it
would
have
to
be
passed
by
two-thirds
majorities
in
the
National
Assembly
and
the
Senate,
and
so
on
–
and
then,
within
three
months
after
being
so
passed, the
Bill
would
have
to
be
submitted
to
a
national
referendum
and
approved
by
a
majority
of
the
voters
casting
their
votes at
the
referendum.
This
is
set
out
in
section
328(9)
of
the
Constitution. We
might
add that
the
referendum
would
have
to
be
held
in
accordance
with
the
principles
set
out
in
section
155
of
the
Constitution,
which
means
it
would
have
to
be
peaceful,
free
and
fair
and
based
on
universal
adult
suffrage
and
equality
of
votes.
Summary
of
Procedure
for
Extending
the
Current
President’s
Term
To
sum
up
the
procedure
that
would
have
to
be
followed
if
the
Government
decided
that
President
Mnangagwa
should
be
allowed
to
stand
again
for
election
or
that
his
current
term
should
be
extended,
the
following
steps
would
have
to
be
taken:
-
A
Bill
amending
section
91
and/or
95,
as
well
as
section
328(7)
of
the
Constitution
would
have
to
be
published
in
the
Gazette
for
at
least
90
days. -
Parliament
would
have
to
invite
public
comments,
written
and
verbal,
on
the
proposed
amendments. -
The
Bill
would
have
to
be
passed
by
two-thirds
majorities
at
its
final
readings
in
both
the
National
Assembly
and
the
Senate. -
Within
three
months
the
Bill
would
have
to
be
put
to
a
referendum
and
passed
by
a
majority
of
the
voters
who
cast
their
votes.
Circumventing
The
Constitution
-
We
said
earlier
that
one
lawyer
has
proposed
getting
round
the
need
for
a
referendum
by
inserting
a
new
provision
in
the
Constitution
stating
that
presidential
terms
last
seven
years,
not
five
years.
This,
he
suggests,
would
not
amend
section
95(2)
–
which
is
a
term-limit
provision
–
and
so
would
not
require
a
referendum
for
it
to
apply
to
President
Mnangagwa.
There
are
problems
with
this
proposal: -
The
word
“amend”
is
defined
very
broadly
in
the
Constitution,
to
include:
“vary,
alter,
modify,
add
to,
delete
or
adapt”.
A
new
section
fixing
seven-year
presidential
terms
would
certainly
vary,
alter,
modify
or
adapt
section
95(2)
–
in
fact,
it
would
practically
nullify
it
because
while
section
95(2)
says
presidential
terms
last
for
five
years
the
new
provision
would
say:
“No,
actually
they
are
seven
years.”
Hence
the
new
provision
would
amend
a
term-limit
provision
and
so
could
not
apply
to
the
incumbent
President
unless
it
was
approved
at
a
referendum. -
More
broadly,
the
new
provision
would
have
to
be
interpreted
in
the
same
way
as
any
other
provision
of
the
Constitution,
that
is
to
say
it
would
have
to
be
given
a
purposive
and
contextual
interpretation
which
gives
expression
to
the
underlying
values
of
the
Constitution.
Giving
it
a
purposive
interpretation,
one
would
have
to
concede
that
the
only
purpose
of
the
new
provision
would
be
to
get
round
or
circumvent
section
328(7)
of
the
Constitution
–
hardly
a
legitimate
purpose.
One
would
have
to
concede,
also,
that
the
new
provision
would
violate
at
least
one
underlying
constitutional
value,
namely
that
term-limits
cannot
be
extended
so
as
to
benefit
incumbent
office-holders
–
a
value
so
important
that
it
is
specially
entrenched
like
the
Declaration
of
Rights. -
We
might
add
that
this
same
hurdle
would
be
faced
any
other
ingenious
scheme
to
extend
President
Mnangagwa’s
term
without
holding
a
referendum
–
it
would
violate
the
important
constitutional
value
or
principle
that
incumbents
cannot
benefit
from
an
extension
of
term-limits
–
a
value
that
can
be
abolished
or
altered
only
with
the
approval
of
a
majority
of
voters
voting
in
a
referendum.
In
Defence
of
Term
Limits
Term-limits
on
the
exercise
of
executive
power
are
an
important
democratic
check
on
the
abuse
of
that
power,
and
this
has
been
recognised
since
the
days
of
ancient
Rome,
when
consuls
held
office
for
one
year
only.
If
politicians
know
that
their
time
in
office
will
come
to
an
end
within
a
relatively
short
period,
they
are
likely
to
moderate
their
conduct
in
order
to
avoid
retribution
when
they
cease
to
hold
office.
They
are
more
likely
to
treat
colleagues
and
even
political
opponents
with
respect
if
they
know
that
in
a
few
years’
time
those
colleagues
or
opponents
may
be
occupying
their
office.
The
term-limits
laid
down
in
our
Constitution
are
there
for
a
very
good
reason.
They
must
not
be
altered
lightly.
Veritas
makes
every
effort
to
ensure
reliable
information,
but
cannot
take
legal
responsibility
for
information
supplied
Post
published
in:
Featured