Author: TSA Press

The
campaign,
which
runs
from
February
16
to
21,
2026,
will
focus
on
seven
rural
provinces:
Mashonaland
East,
Mashonaland
West,
Mashonaland
Central,
Midlands,
Manicaland,
Matabeleland
South
and
Masvingo.

In
a
statement
on
their
official
X
account,
the
MoHCC
said
the
programme
is
a
critical
public
health
initiative
aimed
at
protecting
children
who
are
most
vulnerable
to
the
water-borne
disease.

“The
Ministry
of
Health
and
Child
Care
has
embarked
on
the
National
Mass
Drug
Administration
(MDA)
for
Schistosomiasis
(SCH)
or
bilharzia,
a
critical
public
health
initiative
targeting
children
aged
5
to
14
years
with
the
goal
of
eliminating
SCH
as
a
public
health
concern
in
Zimbabwe,”
the
statement
read.

The
Ministry
confirmed
that
1
477
966
targeted
children
will
receive
free
treatment
using
Praziquantel,
the
recommended
medication
for
schistosomiasis.

“The
free
treatment
will
be
administered
at
your
nearest
health
facility,
primary
and
secondary
school
or
static
health
point,”
the
MoHCC
said.

Schistosomiasis
is
caused
by
parasitic
worms
transmitted
through
contact
with
contaminated
freshwater.

It
remains
prevalent
in
many
rural
communities
where
access
to
safe
water
and
sanitation
is
limited,
putting
school-going
children
at
heightened
risk.

The
Ministry
said
the
campaign
will
be
implemented
through
both
school-based
and
community
outreach
platforms
to
ensure
maximum
coverage
in
the
targeted
provinces.

The
programme
is
being
rolled
out
with
support
from
key
partners.
Higherlife
Foundation
has
provided
financial
and
technical
assistance,
while
the
World
Health
Organization
donated
the
required
medication
for
the
MDA.

The
Ministry
described
the
intervention
as
a
significant
milestone
in
Zimbabwe’s
broader
disease
control
strategy.

“This
extensive
school
and
community-based
intervention
marks
a
significant
milestone
toward
eliminating
schistosomiasis
and
improving
the
health
and
wellbeing
of
children
in
the
targeted
regions,”
the
statement
read.

The
toddler,
Asanda
Charisma
Ndlovu,
was
taken
from
her
mother’s
shop
at
Meikles
Market
on
Thursday
morning
after
the
suspect
allegedly
posed
as
a
customer.

Police
say
the
teenager
later
led
officers
to
a
city
flat
where
the
child
was
found
safe.

Asanda’s
mother,
Nesisa
Mpofu,
said
the
incident
happened
at
about
10
am
while
she
was
attending
to
a
woman
who
had
been
inquiring
about
prices.

“She
asked
about
several
items
and
stayed
for
a
while,”
Mpofu
said.
“My
daughter
was
playing
next
to
me.
When
I
turned
to
pack
away
the
goods
I
had
been
showing
her,
I
did
not
realise
my
child
was
no
longer
there.”

A
neighbouring
trader
told
her
she
had
seen
a
woman
carrying
the
toddler,
assuming
they
knew
each
other.

CCTV
footage
reviewed
by
market
management
showed
a
person
descending
the
stairs
with
the
child.
Although
some
initially
believed
the
figure
appeared
male,
Mpofu
said
she
recognised
the
clothing
as
that
worn
by
the
same
woman
she
had
been
serving.

“I
recognised
the
black
fluffy
slides,
black
jeans
with
reflector
detail
and
a
brown
jersey,”
she
said.

In
a
statement
to
police,
the
juvenile
suspect
said
she
had
intended
to
show
the
child
to
a
man
she
described
as
her
boyfriend,
who
she
also
said
had
previously
been
involved
with
her
sister.

“I
took
the
baby
and
went
downstairs,”
she
said.
“My
intention
was
to
show
him
the
child
and
then
return
her.”

The
teenager
said
she
later
considered
returning
the
child
but
claimed
the
man
suggested
they
do
so
the
following
day.
The
child
was
eventually
recovered
on
Thursday.

Bulawayo
police
spokesperson
Inspector
Nomalanga
Msebele
confirmed
the
arrest
and
praised
members
of
the
public
for
providing
information
that
led
to
the
child’s
recovery.

“As
the
police,
we
work
with
the
information
that
you
give
us,”
she
said.
“We
urge
vendors
and
members
of
the
public
to
remain
vigilant
and
ensure
children
are
always
supervised.”

Inspector
Msebele
also
said
the
teenager
had
previously
been
reported
missing
from
her
home
in
Rangemore
and
was
known
to
roam
the
city
centre.

Asanda’s
father,
Ayibongwe
Ndlovu,
described
the
incident
as
“extremely
stressful”.

“At
first
I
thought
it
was
a
prank,”
he
said.
“When
I
realised
it
was
true,
it
was
very
difficult.
We
are
grateful
to
the
police
and
to
everyone
who
helped.”

The
mother
of
the
14-year-old
suspect
said
her
daughter
had
been
missing
from
home
before
the
incident.

“I
had
reported
her
disappearance
to
the
police,”
she
said.
“I
am
sorry
to
the
family
and
to
the
community
for
what
has
happened.”

Speaking
during
CITE’s
X
Space
discussion
on
the
new
amendment
bill
on
Thursday,
Prof 
Moyo,
who
was
involved
in
constitutional
reform
processes
in
the
past
25
years, 
framed
the
debate
as
one
that
must
move
beyond
slogans
and
confront
what
he
termed
the
“mischief”
the
Bill,
approved
by
Cabinet
last
week
and
gazetted
by
Parliament
this
week,
“seeks
to
cure.”

Prof
Moyo
said
he
participated
in
both
the
people-driven
constitutional
exercise
that
produced
the
2000
draft
constitution
under
the
Constitutional
Commission
and
the
later
political
compromise
between
Zanu
PF
and
the
two
MDC
formations
that
culminated
in
the
2013
Constitution.

“It
is
my
considered
view
that
the
Constitution
of
Zimbabwe
Amendment
No.
3
Bill
represents
a
profound
recalibration
of
our
country’s
democratic
or
political
architecture,”
he
said.

“The
foundational
question
of
my
intervention
this
morning
is
based
on
this
question
that
I
pose:
What
is
the
motivation
or
mischief
that
the
bill
is
addressing?
It’s
not
just
dropping
into
our
midst
or
body
politic
like
manna
from
heaven.
It
is
a
response
to
a
particular
situation
or
mischief
which
motivates
it.
And
to
have
a
meaningful
debate,
I
think
it
is
important
to
unpack
or
understand
that
mischief.
In
my
view,
the
mischief
being
addressed
by
this
bill
is
twofold.”

The
first
“mischief,”
he
argued,
lies
in
the
origins
of
Zimbabwe’s
executive
presidency.

According
to
Prof
Moyo,
the
current
system
of
directly
electing
a
powerful
executive
president
traces
back
to
the
1987
constitutional
amendment,
enacted
during
a
period
when
the
ruling
establishment
anticipated
the
consolidation
of
a
one-party
state.

“When
this
system
was
introduced
at
that
time,
it
was
in
anticipation
of
the
establishment
of
a
one-party
state,”
he
said.

“The
1987
amendment
was
enacted
with,
explicitly
the
intentions,
of
establishing
a
one-party
state
in
our
country.”

However,
the
anticipated
one-party
dispensation
did
not
materialise.

By
2000,
the
government
initiated
a
constitutional
review
process
to
address
what
Prof
Moyo
described
as
“structural
consequences
flowing
from
the
1987
changes.”

The
2000
draft
constitution
proposed
a
hybrid
arrangement
that
would
have
restored
a
prime
minister
drawn
from
the
parliamentary
majority
as
head
of
government,
while
retaining
a
president
as
head
of
state
with
reduced
powers.

Unlike
that
draft,
the
2013
Constitution
retained
the
executive
presidency
largely
intact.

“The
2013
constitution
did
not
even
attempt
to
address
the
issues
related
or
rooted
in
the
1987
amendment,”
Prof
Moyo
said.

“Instead,
it
retained
the
presidency
created
in
1987
in
anticipation
of
a
one-party
state,
but
this
time
under
a
constitutional
framework
for
a
multi-party
democracy.”

The
result,
Prof
Moyo
argued,
has
been
an
enduring
structural
contradiction.

“The
constitution
enacted
in
2013
presupposes
the
existence
of
a
multi-party
democracy.
But
the
executive
presidency
inherited
without
even
a
single
amendment
was
enacted
anticipating
that
by
1990
there
would
be
a
one-party
state,”
he
said.

“The
fact
that
this
was
retained
in
2013
by
a
constitution
whose
framework
anticipates
a
multi-party
democracy
naturally
led
to
a
self-evident
structural
breakdown,
exemplified
by
the
scourge
of
disputed
presidential
elections
and
the
toxicity
associated
with
it.”

The
proposed
Bill
seeks,
among
other
changes,
to
transform
the
system
of
electing
the
president
by
moving
from
a
direct
popular
vote
to
an
indirect
election
through
Parliament,
while
also
extending
the
national
electoral
cycle.

Prof
Moyo
maintains
that
this
would
reduce
the
“perpetual
conflict
mode”
that
has
characterised
Zimbabwean
politics
for
decades.

The
second
“mischief”,
he
argued,
concerns
the
short
electoral
cycles
inherited
from
colonial
constitutional
models.

“Over
the
years,
countries
such
as
Zimbabwe
adopted
four
or
five-year
terms
of
office
for
the
executive
and
legislature,”
he
said.

“The
period
is
too
short
and
tends
to
perpetuate
permanent
election
modes,
with
the
next
election
starting
immediately
after
the
last,
breeding
populism,
exacerbating
societal
divisions,
ethnic
divisions
and
leading
to
bureaucratic
inefficiency.”

He
cited
comparative
data
from
several
African
Commonwealth
countries,
arguing
that
shorter
terms
have
often
incentivised
divisive
rhetoric
and
undermined
long-term
planning
in
fragile
institutional
contexts.

“Traditional
enemies
or
grievances
of
the
people
that
fueled
the
nationalist
struggle,
hunger,
poverty,
disease,
ignorance,
are
difficult,
if
not
impossible,
to
address
within
shorter
election
cycles,”
he
said.

Prof
Moyo
contended
that
by
amending
sections
92,
95(2B),
143(1)
and
158(1)
of
Zimbabwe’s
Constitution,
the
Bill
addresses
these
two
structural
problems
without
dismantling
the
fundamental
architecture
of
government.

“It
does
so
not
by
altering
the
structure
of
government
or
its
fundamental
institutions,
but
principally
by
transforming
the
system
of
electing
the
president
and
the
duration
of
the
national
election
cycle,
which
affects
only
two
branches
of
government,”
he
said.

He
dismissed
arguments
that
executive
authority
must
always
be
exercised
through
direct
election.

“Those
who
say
executive
power
is
derived
from
the
people
and
therefore
you
must
have
direct
elections
must
confront
the
reality
that
judicial
power
is
also
derived
from
the
people,
but
the
people
do
not
directly
elect
the
judges,”
he
said.

However,
Prof
Moyo’s
defence
of
the
Bill
stands
in
sharp
contrast
to
mounting
criticism
from
constitutional
law
experts
and
legal
scholars
who
argue
that
the
proposals
collide
with
entrenched
constitutional
safeguards.

Section
328(7)
of
the
Constitution
provides
that
changes
to
presidential
term
limits
require
approval
through
a
referendum.

Moreover,
even
where
term
limits
are
extended,
the
Constitution
stipulates
that
such
amendments
should
not
benefit
an
incumbent
unless
subjected
to
an
additional,
person-specific
referendum.

Critics
argue
that
altering
the
system
of
presidential
election
and
extending
terms
of
office
risks
violating
both
the
spirit
and
letter
of
these
protections.

They
contend
any
changes
affecting
presidential
tenure
must
not
only
pass
through
Parliament
with
a
two-thirds
majority
but
also
secure
approval
in
a
national
referendum.

Prof
Moyo,
claims
the
debate
must
shift
from
suspicion
to
structural
analysis.

“This
constitutional
reform
package
directly
tackles
the
two
situations
I
have
outlined,”
he
insisted.

“The
question
is
whether
we
are
prepared
to
confront
the
structural
contradictions
we
inherited,
or
whether
we
continue
to
manage
symptoms.”

Speaking
at
the
national
launch
on
Wednesday,
United
States
Deputy
Chief
of
Mission,
Phillip
Nervig,
said
the
rollout
marks
a
decisive
moment
in
decades
of
U.S.–Zimbabwe
cooperation
on
HIV.

The
injectable
drug,
developed
by
U.S.
pharmaceutical
company
Gilead
Sciences,
will
be
administered
twice
a
year
and
is
expected
to
improve
adherence,
particularly
among
young
women,
pregnant
and
breastfeeding
mothers
and
other
at-risk
populations.

“LEN
represents
the
cutting
edge
of
HIV
prevention
science.
Already
in
use
in
the
United
States,
as
well
as
in
Zambia
and
Eswatini,
LEN
offers
Zimbabwe
an
historic
opportunity
to
sustain
its
remarkable
progress
in
controlling
the
HIV
epidemic
by
reducing
new
HIV
infections,”
Nervig
said.

Over
the
next
three
years,
the
United
States
plans
to
prevent
more
than
9,000
new
infections
through
lenacapavir.

“These
are
not
just
numbers.
These
are
Zimbabwean
children,
men
and
women
saved
who
will
be
protected
from
HIV
and
will
continue
to
pursue
their
dreams,”
Nervig
added.

The
United
States
remains
the
largest
donor
to
Zimbabwe’s
health
sector
and
has
provided
more
than
US$1.9
billion
in
taxpayer
funding
to
combat
HIV
and
AIDS
in
the
country.

The
support
has
helped
Zimbabwe
surpass
the
UNAIDS 95-95-95
targets,
a
global
benchmark
that
measures
the
percentage
of
people
living
with
HIV
who
know
their
status,
are
on
treatment,
and
have
achieved
viral
suppression.

Nervig
said
U.S.
support
is
now
evolving
under
the
America
First
Global
Health
Strategy,
with
an
emphasis
on
measurable
results
and
sustainability.

“Through
the
America
First
Global
Health
Strategy,
the
United
States
is
helping
countries
to
achieve
self-reliance,”
he
said.
“Together,
we
can
end
HIV.
I
am
confident
that
as
the
Government
of
Zimbabwe
takes
even
more
leadership,
an
AIDS-free
generation
is
within
our
reach.”

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.