According
to
Prof
Moyo,
this
precedent
means
Zanu
PF
can
lawfully
amend
section
95(2)(b)
of
the
Constitution
by
changing
the
president’s
‘term
length’
from
five
to
seven
years,
extending
it,
for
example,
through
a
two-thirds
parliamentary
majority
so
President
Mnangagwa
can
reach
their “Vision
2030”
agenda.
Prof
Moyo
on
his
X
page
argued that
the
“term‑limit”
clause
(Section 91 (2))
limits
the
number
of
terms
a
person
may
serve,
not
the
duration
of
each
term
and
adjusting
the
duration
(Section 95 (2)(b))
can
be
done
by
a
two‑thirds
parliamentary
majority
(Section 328 (5)).
Moyo’s
main
argument
rests
on
the
difference
between
“term
limits”
and
“term
lengths.”
He
noted
that
criticism
from
opposition
politicians
such
as
David
Coltart
on
term
limits
is
mistaken
because
they
mix
up
two
different
parts
of
the
constitution.
Quoting
sections
328
(6),(7),
(8)
and
(9)
of
the
constitution
on his
X
page,
Coltart
had
written
extending
the
president’s
term
would
require
two
national
referendums,
as
the
constitution
clause
on
term
limits
caps
how
long
a
person
can
stay
in
office,
so
any
extension
must
be
voted
for
by
people
in
a
referendum
“The
term
limit
provisions
are
specially
protected
as
are
provisions
in
Chapter
4
(fundamental
rights)
and
16
(land
provisions).
The
wording
of
328(7)
is
critical
–
“the
effect
of
which
is
to
extend”
makes
it
clear
that
even
if
another
term
isn’t
sought
(that
is,
just
an
extension
of
a
few
years)
any
such
constitutional
amendment
must
go
beyond
a
mere
two
thirds
majority
and
must
have
two
referenda
where
it
involves
an
incumbent,”
Coltart
said.
“It
is
simply
disingenuous
for
anyone
to
suggest
that
the
Zanu
PF
resolution
in
Bulawayo
last
year
calling
for
an
extension
of
President
Mnangagwa’s
term,
or
a
further
term
of
office,
can
lawfully
circumvent
the
two
referenda
provision.”
However,
Prof
Moyo
said
Coltart
had
confused
the
two,
explaining
that
a
term
limit
restricts
how
many
times
a
person
can
hold
office,
currently
two
terms
for
a
president,
while
a
term
length
simply
defines
how
long
each
term
lasts,
such
as
five
years.
Prof
Moyo
pointed
to
the
2021
Constitutional
Court
decision
in
Marx Mupungu
versus
Minister
of
Justice
as
the
key
precedent,
where
it
ruled
term‑limit
provisions
fixed
caps
on
how
many
terms
an
individual
may
hold
a
post,
that
is
a
president
may
serve
only
two
terms
and
that
requires
a
referendum
to
change
but
the
length
of
a
single
term
for
an
office,
that
is
a
five‑year
presidential
term
can
be
altered
by
Parliament
alone.
“Applied
to
section
95(2)(b),
the
five-year
presidential
term
of
office
is
inherently
variable:
It
‘extends
until’
events
like
resignation,
removal,
or
parliamentary
dissolution,
mirroring
the
contingent
logic
in
the
Mupungu
case.
This
provision
outlines
the
office’s
maximum
framework
(which
is
five
years);
it
is
not
a
personal
cap
on
the
President
as
a
‘public
officer,’”
said
Prof
Moyo.
“The
Constitution’s
sole
presidential
term
limit
on
the
officeholder
lies
in
section
91(2)’s
two-term
bar,
which
would
remain
untouched
by
a
term
length
amendment
to
section
95(2)(b).”
Because
Zanu
PF’s
October 2024
“Resolution Number 1”
concluded
in
its
congress
in
Bulawayo
seeks
to
amend
section 95 (2)(b)
–
the
clause
that
sets
the
presidential
term
at
five
years,
Prof
Moyo
claimed
the
move
is
fully
permissible
under
the
constitution.
Prof
Moyo
said
Parliament
could
simply
pass
a
bill
with
a
two‑thirds
majority
in
both
houses,
extending
the
term
to,
say,
seven
years,
and
the
president
could
stay
in
office
until
2030.
No
referendum
would
be
needed.
“Amending
Section
95(2)(b)
to
seven
years,
for
instance,
would
simply
recalibrate
this
flexible
duration,
enabling
the
extension
to
2030
via
a
two-thirds
vote
in
each
House
in
Parliament
-free
from
the
“dictates”
of
Sections
328(6)–
(9),”
he
said.
Prof
Moyo
said
several
countries,
such
as
Guinea
and
Ireland,
already
have
seven-year
presidential
terms
without
violating
democratic
principles,
suggesting
Zimbabwe
could
follow
suit.
“If
a
president
resigns
after
two
years,
his
or
her
successor
serves
only
the
remaining
three,
not
a
full
five.
This
underlines
the
office’s
contingent
nature.
The
true
‘term
of
officer’
limit
appears
solely
in
Section
91(2),
which
caps
re-eligibility
of
incumbents
at
two
terms
(with
three
or
more
years
counting
as
a
full
term)
but
imposes
no
upper
ceiling
on
term
duration
-allowing
for
four,
five,
seven,
or
more
years
as
may
be
rationally
and
democratically
justifiable,”
he
said.
“Recent
examples
abound:
Guinea
just
adopted
a
seven-year
presidential
term
on
21
September
2025,
while
Ireland
has
for
decades
maintained
a
seven-year
presidential
term
capped
at
two
terms.”
Political
analyst,
Mxolisi
Ncube,
said
these
were
signs
of
creeping
authoritarianism,
where
the
ruling
party
is
testing
constitutional
loopholes
to
prolong
its
stay
in
power
and
called
for
vigilance
“The
practical
impact
of
this
is
if
Zanu
PF’s
resolution
passes,
President
Mnangagwa
could
remain
in
office
longer
without
a
public
vote,
provided
the
two‑term
limit
is
not
breached.
Any
amendment
extending
Mnangagwa’s
current
term
should
be
subject
to
broad
public
consultation,”
he
said.
Meanwhile,
a
comparative
constitutional
and
international
law
scholar
Dr
Justice
Mavedzenge
outlined
another
potential
political
manoeuvre
where
President
Mnangagwa
could
resign
before
completing
three
years
of
his
current
term,
triggering
the
provisions
of
Sections
100
and
101
of
the
Constitution,
which
allow
a
vice
president
to
act
as
president
until
Zanu
PF
nominates
a
replacement
to
complete
the
term.
He
said
this
constitutional
loophole
can
extend
President
Mnangagwa’s
stay
in
power
beyond
2028
without
formally
amending
the
Constitution.
Speaking
during
one
of
CITE’s
This
Morning
Asakhe
X
Space
discussion
titled
“Vision
2030
or
Power
Extension:
Decoding
Zanu
PF
Endorsements,”
Dr
Mavedzenge
said
certain
provisions
in
Zimbabwe’s
Constitution
could
be
strategically
interpreted
to
allow
President
Mnangagwa
to
remain
politically
relevant
up
to
2030.
“A
constitution
is
only
powerful
to
the
extent
that
its
owners,
the
citizens,
know
about
it,”
said
Dr
Mavedzenge.
“I
wrote
about
this
issue
on
my
blog,
trying
to
unpack
what
Zanu
PF
Harare
provincial
chairperson
(Godwills
Masimirembwa)
meant
when
he
said
Zanu
PF
will
achieve
Vision
2030
without
a
national
referendum.
I
grappled
with
that
because
I
wanted
to
find
out
what
it
is.
Is
he
just
mad
or
is
he
on
to
something?
And
I
found
something.”
Dr
Mavedzenge
said
the
key
lies
in
Sections
91,
100
and
101
of
the
Constitution,
which
together
define
how
presidential
terms
are
measured
and
what
happens
when
a
president
leaves
office.
“The
Constitution
says
that
a
full
term
for
the
president
is
anything
from
three
years
and
above.
If
a
president
serves
less
than
three
years,
that
period
is
not
considered
a
full
term,”
he
explained.
“If
President
Mnangagwa
were
to
serve
only
up
to
around
September
2026,
that
would
not
count
as
a
full
term,
making
him
constitutionally
eligible
to
contest
again.”
Dr
Mavedzenge
said
if
the
president
were
to
resign
before
completing
three
years
of
his
current
term,
triggering
the
provisions
of
Sections
100
and
101,
that
allows
a
vice
president
to
act
as
president
until
Zanu
PF
nominates
a
replacement
to
complete
the
term.
“I
imagine
what
the
party
could
potentially
do
is
engage
Section
101
and
100,
allowing
one
of
the
vice
presidents
to
act
as
president
while
the
party
nominates
a
substantive
replacement
to
serve
out
the
remainder,”
he
said.
“When
I
first
wrote
this,
it
sounded
crazy,
and
my
colleagues
said
it
was
risky
and
impossible.
But
the
more
I
look
at
what
is
happening
in
Zanu
PF
today,
the
more
I
feel
I
might
be
correct.”
He
said
recent
political
developments,
including
speculation
about
a
reconfiguration
of
the
vice
presidency,
suggest
possible
preparations
for
such
a
scenario.
“When
you
look
at
this
idea
of
trying
to
reconstitute
the
presidency,
bringing
in
figures
like
(businessman
Kuda)
Tagwirei
as
potential
vice
presidents
and
the
pushback
against
Vice
President
Constantino
Chiwenga,
I
get
the
sense
that
what
the
2030
campaigners
are
doing
is
to
also
try
and
reconfigure
the
office
of
the
vice
president,”
he
noted.
Dr
Mavedzenge
added
this
could
make
it
possible
for
President
Mnangagwa
to
temporarily
leave
office
between
September
2026
and
return
in
2028
ahead
of
the
next
election,
with
a
temporary
placeholder
in
between.
“In
order
to
make
it
a
possibility
that
President
Mnangagwa
can
have
the
option
of
temporarily
leaving
the
office
between
September
2026
and
coming
back
in
September
2028
when
the
next
elections
are
due
and
Zanu
PF
will
have
a
temporary
placeholder.”
Dr
Mavedzenge
acknowledged
that
such
a
move
would
be
politically
risky,
as
power
vacuums
often
shift
loyalties
but
said
it
was
still
a
scenario
worth
considering
seriously.
Of
course,
we
have
to
accept
that
that
is
risky
because
in
politics,
loyalties
shift.
But
I
want
us
to
think
about
that
as
well
as
a
possibility.
I’m
not
saying
and
I’m
still
not
even
myself
convinced
that
is
a
viable
way
of
achieving
2030.
But
it
is
important,
I
emphasize
to
think
about
that
and
also
say
if
we
are
going
to
work
to
defend
our
constitution.”
He
further
warned
Zimbabwe’s
constitutional
protections
remain
vulnerable
because
the
institutions
meant
to
uphold
them,
the
judiciary,
civil
society
and
opposition,
are
weak
or
compromised.
“A
good
constitutional
text
such
as
what
we
have
must
be
supported
by
an
independent
judiciary,
which
I
think
there
are
doubts
about
the
independence
of
the
Zimbabwean
judiciary,
especially
when
it
comes
to
deciding
on
politically
sensitive
cases.
The
second
is
that
a
good
constitution
such
as
ours
needs
to
be
supported
by
a
strong
civil
society.
And
I
think
our
civil
society
at
the
moment
is
quite
in
a
very
difficult
situation,”
he
said.
“Civic
space
or
democratic
space
has
been
closed,
but
also
inadequate
resources.
But
also,
I
think
there
have
been
attempts
to
capture
civil
society
itself.
So
we
currently
have
a
very
weak
civil
society.
You
also
have
to
have
a
very
strong
opposition…But
the
fact
is
we
don’t
have
a
strong
opposition.
Dr
Mavedzenge
urged
citizens
to
focus
not
only
on
political
outcomes
but
on
the
“infrastructure
of
democracy”
that
sustains
constitutionalism.
“Without
the
infrastructure
of
a
strong
opposition,
a
strong
civil
society,
independent
courts,
the
constitution
is
meaningless.
So
we
have
to
pay
attention
to
the
infrastructure.
Democracy
is
a
good
thing,
but
democracy
only
works
if
the
infrastructure
to
defend
it
is
in
place,”
he
said.
