Self-exiled former ZANU PF Politburo member Jonathan Moyo has claimed that there is no need for a national referendum to extend President Emmerson Mnangagwa’s second term from 2028 to 2030.
In a lengthy post on X, Moyo sought to clarify the legal implications of Zanu PF’s 2024 Resolution Number 1, which has sparked fears that the ruling party may be plotting to keep Mnangagwa in office beyond 2028.
He described claims that ZANU PF intends to remove the presidential term limit from the 2013 Constitution as “unsubstantiated.”
Moyo said that repealing the presidential term limit under section 91(2) of the Constitution would indeed be a serious threat to democracy, as such a move would require two-thirds approval in both houses of Parliament and two national referendums.
However, he stressed that there is no evidence ZANU PF plans to tamper with section 91(2).
Instead, Moyo said the October 2024 party resolution focuses only on extending Mnangagwa’s current term as President and First Secretary from 2028 to 2030.
He argued that the resolution targets section 95(2)(b) of the Constitution, which sets the term of office of the President, not the presidential term-limit provision.
According to Moyo, amending this section would require only a Constitutional Bill approved by two-thirds of Parliament, with no referendum needed, since it does not cap the total number of terms a President can serve.
Moyo also argued that section 143(1), which governs the duration and dissolution of Parliament, regulates the legislative body’s institutional term and does not limit individual MPs, whose tenure is determined separately.
Responding to Moyo’s claims, lawyer David Coltart argued that Moyo overlooked key provisions in sections 328(6) to (9) of the Constitution, which make it clear that extending a term of office for an incumbent president would in fact require two referenda. Said Coltart:
“Why have you deliberately not mentioned the dictates of section 328 (6), (7), (8), and (9) of the Constitution which make it clear that any attempt to extend a term of office by an incumbent requires two referenda?
“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 (ie just an extension of a few years) any such constitutional amendment must go beyond a mere 2rds majority and must have two referenda where it involves an incumbent.
“It is simply disingenuous to suggest that the ZANU PF resolution can lawfully circumvent the two referenda provision.”
Leave a Reply Cancel reply