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.