Mr Ziyambi, yes the constitution can be amended — but it must be done lawfully

When leaders resort to playing tricks with national issues, it is often a symptom of deeper fear.

Recently, ZANU-PF Secretary for Legal Affairs and Minister of Justice, Legal and Parliamentary Affairs, Ziyambi Ziyambi, made a startling statement while outlining what he described as a clear roadmap towards amending Zimbabwe’s Constitution to allow President Emmerson Mnangagwa to remain in power beyond the expiry of his second and final term in 2028.

To directly receive articles from Tendai Ruben Mbofana, please join his WhatsApp Channel on: https://whatsapp.com/channel/0029VaqprWCIyPtRnKpkHe08

In a remark that was both arrogant and dismissive of genuine public concern, Ziyambi declared that “only the Bible is immune to amendment,” insisting that the Constitution of Zimbabwe permits changes and that the ruling party is merely following what the law allows.

This statement raises a fundamental question: is the Minister genuinely ignorant of why Zimbabweans are resisting this proposed amendment, or is he deliberately pretending not to understand—what in Shona we aptly call kunyepera kudzungaira—as a tactical way of dodging the real constitutional and moral issues at stake?

Because the truth is this: no serious critic has ever argued that the Constitution cannot be amended.

That argument exists only in Ziyambi’s imagination, where it conveniently serves as a straw man to distract from the real problem.

Who, with even the most basic understanding of constitutional law, would believe that a country’s supreme law is immutable?

The Constitution itself explicitly provides for its amendment.

Section 328 exists for precisely that purpose.

It is therefore absurd for Ziyambi to posture as though he is correcting some widespread legal ignorance.

No one has claimed that the Constitution is sacred scripture or that it can never be altered.

What Zimbabweans are objecting to is not the act of amendment itself, but the blatant attempt to violate both the spirit and the letter of the Constitution in order to benefit a single individual.

The real issue is simple and has always been simple.

Any amendment to the Constitution must be carried out strictly in accordance with the procedures and limitations set out in the Constitution itself.

In this case, that means full and faithful adherence to Section 328.

Anything less is not constitutional reform; it is constitutional manipulation.

Section 328(7) could not be clearer.

It explicitly states that an amendment to a term-limit provision, the effect of which is to extend the length of time a person may hold or occupy a public office, does not apply to anyone who held or occupied that office, or an equivalent office, at any time before the amendment.

The operative phrase here is “the effect of which is to extend the length of time.”

This clause was deliberately crafted to prevent exactly what ZANU-PF is now attempting to do.

It should be self-evident to a qualified lawyer such as Ziyambi that any effort—whether direct or indirect—to allow President Mnangagwa to remain in office beyond 2028 falls squarely within what Section 328(7) prohibits.

Whether the ruling party chooses to remove term limits altogether, extend the length of a presidential term, or postpone elections under some contrived justification, the outcome is the same.

It would effectively extend the length of time Mnangagwa may hold or occupy the presidency.

The Constitution forbids this, plainly and unambiguously.

This is what Zimbabweans are resisting.

Not constitutional amendment per se, but constitutional abuse.

No amount of legal gymnastics can change the substance of what is being proposed.

The Constitution bars any amendment that benefits a sitting or former officeholder by extending their time in office.

President Mnangagwa, having already held the office before any proposed amendment, is constitutionally disqualified from benefiting from such changes.

Of course, even Section 328(7) itself can be amended.

There is nothing unlawful about that in principle.

But—and this is the part Ziyambi carefully avoids—such an amendment is subject to what constitutional scholars refer to as a “double lock” or sequential safeguard.

Section 328(8) requires not only a two-thirds majority in both Houses of Parliament, but also approval by a national referendum.

This is no accident.

The framers of the Constitution anticipated precisely this kind of political temptation and erected high barriers to prevent self-serving alterations to the democratic order.

Moreover, because the two-term limit and the five-year term length are distinct constitutional provisions, altering both in a way that allows an incumbent to benefit would logically require two separate referendums.

One referendum would be needed to amend the term-limit restriction itself, and another to amend the clause preventing incumbents from benefiting from such changes.

This sequential logic ensures that the people—not politicians—have the final say on fundamental changes to their governance system.

It is this referendum hurdle that those pushing the so-called ED2030 agenda fear the most.

In a country where nearly 80 percent of the population lives in poverty, where public services are in collapse, and where corruption has become normalized, it is difficult to imagine Zimbabweans voting to extend the rule of the very individual under whose leadership their suffering has deepened.

This is why the debate is being deliberately distorted.

Pretending that critics are opposed to constitutional amendment in general is far easier than admitting that the real obstacle is the people themselves.

Even if such amendments were to pass legally, they would still raise serious political and ethical concerns.

Term limits exist for sound reasons.

They prevent the concentration of power, encourage leadership renewal, reduce the risk of authoritarianism, and promote institutional stability.

They also send a powerful signal that no individual is indispensable to the nation.

Once term limits are removed or manipulated to suit one leader, they become meaningless, and future leaders will feel equally entitled to bend the rules for their own benefit.

Zimbabwe’s tragic history is littered with the consequences of leaders who overstayed their welcome.

Weak institutions, economic collapse, political violence, and national stagnation thrive where power is personalized rather than constrained.

Undermining term limits may solve a short-term political problem for ZANU-PF, but it creates long-term instability for the country.

The deliberate misrepresentation of public opposition to these amendments betrays a ruling elite that knows its argument is indefensible.

A Constitution is not amended lightly, and certainly not to serve the ambitions of a single individual.

When those in power resort to caricaturing critics and trivializing legitimate concerns, it reveals not confidence, but fear.

So yes, Mr Ziyambi, the Constitution can indeed be amended.

No one disputes that.

But it must be amended lawfully, transparently, and in good faith.

Anything else is not constitutionalism; it is constitutional vandalism.

And Zimbabweans are right to resist it.