Mnangagwa’s broken promise

by MANGALISO TSHUMA
BULAWAYO – WHEN President Emmerson Mnangagwa met newspaper editors at State House in February 2025, he sought to end speculation about extending his time in office.

He said he would serve only the two presidential terms permitted under Zimbabwe’s Constitution before stepping aside for his party to choose a successor.

Asked whether he could be persuaded to remain beyond 2028, Mnangagwa insisted he would resist any such calls, declaring that he intended to remain “a constitutionalist”.

Eighteen months later, those assurances have come under renewed scrutiny following his decision to sign Constitutional Amendment Bill No. 3 (CAB3) into law.

The legislation, signed on 7 July 2026, extends presidential and parliamentary terms from five to seven years, postpones the next general election from 2028 to 2030 and replaces direct presidential elections with parliamentary selection under the new constitutional framework.

The development marks a significant shift from Mnangagwa’s earlier public position.

Although he previously maintained that his tenure would conclude in 2028, the constitutional amendments mean he will remain President until at least 2030.

The legislative process unfolded over several months. Cabinet approved the Bill in February 2026 before Parliament passed it in June with the required majorities in both the National Assembly and the Senate.

Mnangagwa subsequently gave the legislation presidential assent.

The amendments have generated strong reactions from across Zimbabwean society. Church leaders, retired military officers, legal bodies and civil society organisations publicly expressed concern, arguing that the reforms could weaken constitutional safeguards and alter the country’s democratic trajectory.

Critics also point to the long-term implications of the amendments.

Under the revised framework, the next presidential selection will take place in 2030 through Parliament rather than a nationwide vote.

Depending on future electoral outcomes and the operation of the new constitutional provisions, the presidency could remain under the same governing political leadership for many years.

Supporters of the reforms, however, argue that constitutional amendments fall within Parliament’s legislative authority and that the changes provide continuity in governance.

For many observers, the central issue remains the contrast between Mnangagwa’s earlier commitment to leave office after two terms and the constitutional changes now in force.

That apparent inconsistency has fuelled debate over political accountability, constitutionalism and public trust.

As Zimbabwe enters a new constitutional era, discussion is likely to focus not only on the legal implications of the amendments but also on what they mean for democratic governance, leadership succession and confidence in political commitments.