Dr
Mavedzenge
added
that
the
central
objective
of
the
proposed
Amendment
Bill
is
to
extend
President
Emmerson
Mnangagwa’s
term
of
office
without
a
referendum
or
seeking
approval
from
citizens,
in
violation
of
Section
328
of
the
Constitution.
Making
a
detailed
legal
critique
of
the
proposed
amendment
bill,
Dr
Mavedzenge
said
it
was
both
legally
and
politically
problematic,
while
dismissing
several
of
the
proposed
changes
as
deliberate
distractions.
“There
are
a
raft
of
propositions
that
are
contained
in
this
constitutional
bill.
It
is
my
respectful
view
that
a
lot
of
those
other
proposed
amendments
are
just
an
attempt
to
divert
our
attention
from
the
real
thing,”
he
said.
“The
real
thing
is
that
the
Bill
seeks
to
extend
the
president’s
term
of
office
without
holding
a
referendum.”
The
Bill
proposes
amending
Section
95(2B)
of
the
Constitution
to
increase
the
presidential
term
from
five
years
to
seven
years
and
to
allow
the
incumbent
to
remain
in
office
beyond
2028
until
2030.
Dr
Mavedzenge
said
the
issue
is
not
merely
political
but
fundamentally
constitutional.
“President
Mnangagwa
and
his
and
the
proponents
of
this
bill
implement
the
Constitution
without
following
due
process,”
he
said,
rejecting
claims
that
the
amendment
is
motivated
by
governance
efficiency
or
harmonisation
concerns.
Instead,
Dr
Mavedzenge
argued
that
the
real
driver
of
the
Bill
was
internal
ruling
party
politics.
“The
purpose
is
to
manage
Zanu
PF’s
internal
succession
crisis.
So
our
national
constitution
is
being
mutilated,
just
as
we
saw
how
the
constitutional
institutions
were
subverted
under
President
Mugabe
in
order
to
deal
again
with
an
internal
succession
battle.
And
that
led
to
the
2017
military
coup,”
he
said,
referring
to
the
events
that
ended
the
rule
of
the
late
former
President
Robert
Mugabe.
“I
think
it
is
important
for
Zimbabweans
to
keep
that
at
the
back
of
their
minds,
that
the
real
purpose
behind
this
bill,
this
planned
constitutional
coup
is
to
simply
manage
the
internal
Zanu
PF
succession
processes.”
Dr
Mavedzenge
centred
his
argument
on
Section
328(7)
of
the
Constitution,
which
sets
out
when
constitutional
amendments
must
be
subjected
to
a
referendum.
“Section
328
subsection
7
of
the
Constitution
lays
down
a
very
clear
framework
for
deciding
whether
an
amendment
to
the
Constitution
should
be
done
after
a
referendum
or
not,”
he
said.
“The
framework
is
this,
if
an
amendment
seeks
to
A,
change
a
term
limit
provision,
and
B,
has
the
effect
of
extending
the
length
of
time
that
a
person
may
hold
a
position,
then
the
amendment
must
be
subjected
to
a
national
referendum
and
cannot
benefit
the
incumbent.”
The
Bill
‘clearly’
satisfies
both
these
conditions
spelt
out
in
Section
328(7),
said
Dr
Mavedzenge.
“The
bill
presented
before
us
seeks
to
amend
Section
95
subsection
2B
of
the
Constitution
by
increasing
the
term
of
office
for
the
president
from
five
to
seven
years,”
he
said.
“This
is
not
my
interpretation.
It’s
what
is
written
in
the
bill,
to
increase
the
term
of
office
for
the
president
from
five
to
seven
years
and
to
allow
the
current
president
to
continue
in
office
beyond
2028
until
2030.
This
is
what
is
in
the
bill.”
The
central
dispute,
he
explained,
turns
on
whether
Section
95(2B)
is
a
“term
limit
provision”
within
the
meaning
of
Section
328.
“The
short
answer
is
yes,”
Dr
Mavedzenge
said.
The
constitutional
expert
said
much
of
the
public
debate
had
been
clouded
by
“propaganda,”
meant
to
“precisely
mislead
and
confuse
people”
by
suggesting
that
only
Section
91(2)
constitutes
a
term
limit
provision.
“Section
328
defines
a
term
limit
provision
as
follows.
And
I
want
to
quote,
because
I
think
when
we
have
a
situation
where
people
are
attaching
their
own
definitions
to
things,
we
need
to
quote
the
exact
provisions
of
the
constitution,”
Dr
Mavedzenge
said
as
he
turned
to
the
constitutional
text.
“A
term
limit
provision
is
a
provision
of
this
Constitution
which
limits
the
length
of
time
that
a
person
may
hold
or
occupy
office.”
He
stressed
that
a
term
limit
is
not
solely
about
the
number
of
terms
but
the
length
of
time.
“It
is
critical
to
clarify
that
a
term
limit
provision
is
not
about
the
number
of
times
that
a
person
may
hold
office
necessarily,
but
the
length
of
time
that
a
person
may
occupy
the
office,”
he
said.
“Section
95(2B)
defines
the
length
of
time
the
president
can
occupy
that
office.
It
sets
the
term
at
five
years.
I
don’t
know
why
there’s
confusion
about
this.”
To
drive
the
point
home,
Dr
Mavedzenge
said
if
you
ask
any
Zimbabwean
in
any
village,
or
street
when
elections
in
the
country
are
due,
they
will
tell
you
every
five
years.
“Why
do
we
hold
elections
every
five
years?
It
is
because
the
term
of
office
for
the
President
is
limited
by
Section
95(2B)
to
five
years,”
he
said.
He
rejected
arguments
that Section
91(2)
of
the
Constitution governs
the
five-year
cycle.
“We
do
not
hold
elections
every
five
years
because
of
Section
91(2)
because
there
is
nothing
in
Section
91(2)
which
says
elections
are
due
every
five
years,”
he
said.
Section
91
of
the
Constitution
is
titled
“Qualifications
for
Election
as
President
and
Vice
President”
while
Section
91(2)
states:
A
person
is
disqualified
for
election
as
President
or
Vice-President
if
he
or
she
has
already
held
office
as
President
under
this
Constitution
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,
“That
particular
provision
goes
on
to
say
a
person
is
disqualified
for
election
as
president
if
he
or
she
has
already
served
as
president
for
two
terms,”
Mavedzenge
explained.
“But
two
terms
of
what?
You
can
only
answer
that
question
if
you
go
to
Section
95,
which
is
the
matter
of
presidential
term
limits.”
He
argued
that
Section
91(2)
merely
elaborates
on
the
two-term
cap
and
clarifies
how
a
“term”
is
calculated.
“Section
91(2)
is
explaining
and
expanding
on
the
term
limit
that
is
defined
in
Section
95,”
he
said.
“So
Section
95
is
the
cathedral
for
presidential
term
limits
in
Zimbabwe.
It
is
the
primary
provision
that
limits
the
term
of
office.”
Section
95
of
the
constitution,
titled
Term
of
office
of
President
and
Vice-Presidents
reads:
95
(1)
The
term
of
office
of
the
President
or
a
Vice-President
commences
on
the
day
he
or
she
is
sworn
in
and
assumes
office
in
terms
of
section
94(1)(a)
or
94(3).
(2)
The
term
of
office
of
the
President
or
a
Vice-President
extends
until
(a)
he
or
she
resigns
or
is
removed
from
office;
or
(b)
following
an
election,
he
or
she
is
declared
to
be
re-elected
or
a
new
President
is
declared
to
be
elected;
and,
except
as
otherwise
provided
in
this
constitution,
their
terms
of
office
are
five
years
and
coterminous
with
the
life
of
Parliament.
Dr
Mavedzenge,
said
to
suggest
otherwise,
is
to
ignore
both
constitutional
structure
and
judicial
precedent.
“It
does
not
need,
in
Professor
Moyo’s
language,
a
rocket
scientist,
to
know
that,
because
we
have
elections
every
five
years.
The
President
cannot
go
beyond
five
years,”
he
said.
He
cited
jurisprudence
from
the
Constitutional
Court
to
buttress
his
argument.
“In
Max
Mupungu
versus
Minister
of
Justice,
the
Constitutional
Court
has
already
identified
Section
95
as
a
term
limit
provision
at
pages
50
and
51
of
the
judgment,”
he
said.
Dr
Mavedzengee
also
referenced
a
previous
case
of
Jealous
Mawarire
versus
the
President
of
Zimbabwe,
then
Robert
Mugabe.
“In
that
matter,
the
Constitutional
Court
again
indicated
that
the
term
of
office
is
limited
to
five
years.
It
is
limited
to
five
years.
So
you
can’t
create
any
fiction
around
that
in
light
of
existing
jurisprudence
in
the
country,
but
also
practice.”
For
him,
the
combined
effect
of
constitutional
text,
structure,
and
case
law
leaves
little
room
for
ambiguity.
Beyond
the
legal
arguments,
Mavedzenge
warned
of
the
broader
democratic
consequences
of
amending
term
limits
without
popular
approval.
“When
people
are
planning
a
coup,
they
first
deploy
propaganda,
precisely
to
mislead
and
confuse
people,”
he
said.
“We
have
seen
this
in
Zimbabwe.
Whenever
electoral
coups
have
been
planned,
the
first
attempt
was
to
criminalise
opposition.
The
first
attempt
was
to
mislead
Zimbabweans
into
believing
that
the
opposition
is
some
kind
of
a
creature
that
should
never
be
allowed
to
take
over
power.”
He
drew
parallels
with
the
narrative
that
preceded
the
2017
military
intervention.
“Fast
forward
2017,
when
a
coup
was
being
planned,
we
were
told
that
the
purpose
of
this
whole
operation
is
to
remove
criminals
around
the
president.
The
same
tactics
are
being
deployed
here.”
Describing
the
proposed
amendment
as
a
“planned
constitutional
coup,”
Mavedzenge
said
the
Constitution
risks
being
reduced
to
an
instrument
of
factional
power
struggles
rather
than
a
supreme
law
reflecting
the
will
of
the
people.
“Our
national
constitution
is
being
mutilated
and
if
we
normalise
this
kind
of
manipulation,
we
undermine
the
very
foundation
of
constitutionalism,
that
those
who
exercise
public
power
must do
so
within
strict
legal
limits,”
he
said.