Opposition Condemns Zanu PF Plan to Extend Mnangagwa’s Term to 2030
Zanu PF moves to extend Mnangagwa’s rule to 2030, sparking fierce opposition and constitutional questions
In a decision that could reshape Zimbabwe’s immediate political trajectory, the ruling Zanu PF party has instructed the government to begin legal and constitutional changes to extend President Emmerson Mnangagwa’s tenure by two years, to 2030. The resolution, adopted at Zanu PF’s 22nd Annual People’s Conference in Mutare, has drawn sharp condemnation from opposition figures who say the move threatens the country’s constitutional order.
- Advertisement -
Party conference and the mechanics of a potential extension
Delegates in Mutare — a city tucked against the eastern highlands where politicians and party elders traditionally gather to sketch the party’s agenda — voted for a resolution directing the Justice Ministry to start the legal process needed to push Mnangagwa’s term limit from 2028 to 2030. Information Secretary Nick Mangwana told reporters that the ministry had been tasked to kick off the process by October 2026, a timetable that suggests the party intends to lay the groundwork well ahead of the next election cycle.
The move comes with Zanu PF framing. Delegates argued that Mnangagwa’s leadership had delivered stability and the beginnings of economic recovery after years of turmoil, and that continuity at the top would protect those gains. “Stability is fragile in Zimbabwe,” one senior delegate told party members during the conference. “We cannot gamble with the progress we have made.”
Opposition ululates, vows legal defence of the constitution
Opposition leaders responded with immediate outrage. Nelson Chamisa, the high-profile former leader of the Citizens Coalition for Change (CCC), dismissed the resolution as binding only on Zanu PF members and of no legal force against the state or its institutions. “This is a party’s wish-list, not a constitutional amendment,” Chamisa said, urging citizens and international observers to remain vigilant.
Tendai Biti, a veteran opposition lawyer and former finance minister, framed the party’s directive in sterner terms. He called it a “dangerous, anti‑people agenda” and vowed to use legal avenues to defend the 2013 constitution, which enshrined presidential term limits and has been a touchstone for Zimbabwe’s post-Mugabe legal framework.
Why the proposal matters: institutions, precedent and the rule of law
At stake are more than two years of one presidency. The proposed change would probe the robustness of institutions that have, since 2013, been charged with guarding Zimbabwe’s democratic architecture. The 2013 constitution was widely perceived as an attempt to reset the rules after decades of Zanu PF dominance under Robert Mugabe; altering those rules raises immediate questions about the atmosphere in which amendments are made and who benefits.
Zimbabwe’s recent history adds texture to the debate. Mnangagwa seized power in 2017 after the army forced Mugabe from office in a dramatic turn that left international observers divided on whether Zimbabwe had simply traded one strongman for another. Mnangagwa then won contested elections in 2018 and again in 2023. Critics say the state apparatus and electoral processes remain skewed in favour of the incumbent party; supporters counter that Mnangagwa has stabilized an economy battered by hyperinflation, sanctions and underinvestment.
Regional and global echoes
The Zanu PF initiative also slots into a wider pattern seen in several countries where long-serving leaders have sought to amend constitutions to extend their time in office. From parts of Africa to other regions, constitutional amendments, judicial reinterpretations and parliamentary maneuvers have been used to recalibrate term limits and extend incumbents’ grip on power. Such moves often generate a tense trade-off: the promise of continuity and stability versus the risk of eroding checks and balances.
For Zimbabwe, the calculus includes both domestic and international factors. On the home front, supporters argue that continuity will encourage investment and consolidate fragile gains. Abroad, any move widely viewed as undemocratic could deepen isolation, complicate efforts to attract foreign capital and revive criticism from western governments and rights groups — many of whom have been cautious of Mnangagwa’s government despite its pro-market rhetoric.
What comes next?
The Justice Ministry’s role will be pivotal. Any constitutional amendment requires parliamentary action and, depending on the route chosen, may demand a supermajority or even a referendum. Legal challenges are almost certain, and the Constitutional Court could become the arbiter of whether a party conference resolution can be translated into an amendment that binds the nation.
Beyond legal mechanics, the political theatre will intensify. Civil society organisations, church leaders and trade unions — groups that played visible roles in Zimbabwe’s politics in the past — will be watching closely. So will regional bodies such as the Southern African Development Community (SADC) and multilateral actors who have called for dialogue and constitutionalism in Zimbabwe.
For ordinary Zimbabweans, the debate raises immediate questions: Do they feel safer with continuity at the top, or do they fear a slow drift away from democratic checks? How will businesses that backed Mnangagwa’s stability claims react to the prospect of constitutional tinkering? And what room will the opposition have to contest future ballots if the legal and institutional playing fields are changed?
Closing questions
As this story unfolds, it forces a wider reflection about the balance between governance and rights: can a country recover economically and politically if mechanisms that limit executive power are weakened? And who decides when stability becomes an excuse for entrenchment?
The Zanu PF motion has turned a party conference resolution into a national flashpoint. The months ahead will test not only legal procedures and political strategies in Harare, but also how Zimbabwe’s citizens and regional partners respond when the rules that govern leadership are rewritten.
By News-room
Axadle Times international–Monitoring.