TERM LIMIT EXTENSION IS A CONSTITUTIONAL TRICK ZIMBABWE MUST REJECT

ZANU PF loves to play with words. It knows that most people do not read constitutions line by line. So it hides big power grabs inside technical clauses and then calls it “clarification” or “alignment”. One of the most dangerous games is the push to extend a President’s time in office by stretching the life of Parliament. That is not democracy. That is a slow theft of the people’s right to choose. This is how dictators stay forever.

Look at how the older text was framed. In the 2007 version, Section 29 said the President’s term is five years, concurrent with the life of Parliament. But it then opened a door. It allowed a longer period where the life of Parliament is extended under Section 63(5) or (6). In simple language, if Parliament is extended, the President also stays longer. The clause even added that the President continues in office until the next elected President enters office. This is the kind of wording that looks harmless, yet it creates a path for a leader to cling on.

The same design appears in the 2007 version of Section 63(4) on Parliament. Parliament lasts for five years from the day the person elected as President enters office, and then it stands dissolved, unless the period is extended under the later subsections. Put these two together and you get a dangerous chain. Extend Parliament and you extend the President. That is the logic of political greed.

Today, the 2013 Constitution has Section 95(2)(b). It says the President’s term extends until, following an election, he or she is declared re elected or a new President is declared elected, and that the term is five years and coterminous with the life of Parliament, except as otherwise provided. Section 143(1) says Parliament is elected for a five year term running from the date the President elect is sworn in and assumes office, and Parliament stands dissolved at midnight on the day before the first polling day in the next general election.

Yes, these current sections are similar to earlier versions from 1980, later amended in 1987 and 2007, and then carried into 2013. Their core form has stayed. That matters, because it shows these provisions were built to define timing and coordination between elections, Parliament, and the Presidency. They are not, in their core substance, term limit provisions. Under Section 328(1), the Constitution treats term limit clauses differently. Sections 95(2)(b) and 143(1) are emphatically not term limit provisions under that rule.

But here is the warning. Even if a clause is not a term limit provision, it can still be abused to extend real time in power. The old 2007 wording proves the mindset. ZANU PF has always wanted room to stretch periods. The phrase “except as otherwise provided” is a crack in the wall. Once you accept extensions of Parliament, you create pressure to accept extensions of the President, because the terms are tied together. That is why we must criticize any attempt to extend terms in practice, whether it is sold as an administrative adjustment or a constitutional tidying up.

Zimbabweans must defend the simple principle that five years means five years. Elections must not be delayed to save any ruler or party. Parliament must not be extended to protect a President. The people are the bosses, not the politicians. Any term limit extension, direct or indirect, is an attack on accountability. ZANU PF has used amendments for decades to build personal power. We must not allow another quiet extension dressed up as law.