By Princess Eugene Majuru
Recent remarks by Paul Mangwana have triggered widespread public discussion about whether Zimbabwe’s president could remain in office beyond the current constitutional term. Mangwana stated that if Emmerson Mnangagwa refuses to comply with a party decision requesting him to continue in office for two more years, the party could “deal with him according to the constitution of the party.”
Following this statement, several readers contacted News of The South asking a simple but important question: Is a presidential term extension decided by ZANU-PF, or by the people of Zimbabwe through the national Constitution?
Understanding the issue requires examining two different frameworks: the ZANU-PF party constitution and the national Constitution of Zimbabwe.
The Party Constitution vs the National Constitution
Like all political parties, ZANU-PF operates under its own internal constitution. This document governs how the party functions internally—how leaders are chosen, how discipline is enforced, and how members must follow party decisions.
If the party’s leadership or congress resolves that the president should pursue a particular political path, party members—including those holding public office—are generally expected to follow that decision.
Mangwana’s comment appears to refer to internal party discipline. In other words, if a party member refuses to follow an official party resolution, the party constitution allows disciplinary measures such as:
reprimand
suspension
removal from party positions
expulsion from the party
These actions are internal political consequences, not constitutional changes to the presidency.
What the Constitution of Zimbabwe Says
Zimbabwe’s presidency, however, is not governed by a party constitution but by the national constitution: the Constitution of Zimbabwe.
The constitution clearly outlines presidential terms.
Section 91(2) states that the President serves a five-year term.
Section 91(2) together with Section 328(7) limits a president to two terms in office.
These provisions mean that:
The length of a presidential term is fixed in the constitution.
Changing the term would require a constitutional amendment.
How a Presidential Term Could Be Extended
To extend a presidential term beyond what the constitution currently allows, a formal constitutional amendment would be required.
Under Section 328 of the Constitution, an amendment process includes:
A constitutional amendment bill introduced in Parliament.
A two-thirds majority vote in both the National Assembly and the Senate.
In some circumstances, a national referendum may also be required.
This means that no political party alone can legally extend a presidential term without going through constitutional procedures.
The Role of the Zimbabwean People
Ultimately, the authority of government derives from the citizens of the country. The constitution begins with the principle that sovereignty belongs to the people of Zimbabwe. Elections are conducted by the Zimbabwe Electoral Commission to ensure leaders are chosen by voters.
Therefore:
Political parties may propose political ideas or strategies.
Parliament may pass constitutional amendments.
But the authority for governance ultimately comes from the people through the constitution and elections.
Interpreting Mangwana’s Statement
Mangwana’s statement that the party could “deal with” the president likely refers to internal party rules, not national law.
In practical terms, it suggests:
ZANU-PF could discipline one of its members if he or she refuses to follow a party resolution. However, the party itself cannot override the national constitution.
This distinction is important because the presidency is a national office created by the constitution, not by any single political party.
Why the Debate Matters
The discussion highlights an ongoing tension in many democracies between party authority and constitutional authority. Political parties often shape policy direction and leadership choices. Yet the ultimate framework for governing a country remains the national constitution, which applies to all citizens regardless of political affiliation.
For Zimbabwe, the key question is therefore not only what ZANU-PF decides internally, but whether any proposed political change complies with the constitutional procedures established in 2013.
A Public Conversation Continues
As debate continues, many readers have asked News of The South to clarify how party decisions relate to constitutional law. Their question reflects a broader national interest in understanding where political authority begins and ends.
What remains clear is that party resolutions, parliamentary processes, and the constitutional rights of citizens are three different layers of governance—each with its own powers and limitations.
Understanding those distinctions is essential for informed public discussion about the future of leadership and constitutional governance in Zimbabwe.
Comments
About Author
