Zimbabwe is in the middle of a constitutional crisis that is playing out in parliament, in the courts, and on the streets. At the centre of it is one question: should President Emmerson Mnangagwa, who is legally required to step down in 2028, be allowed to stay in office until 2030?
His ruling party, ZANU-PF as expected, says yes. A growing number of Zimbabweans, lawyers, opposition figures — and even some within the ruling party itself — say absolutely not. This has been come a trend across most African countries for decades now.
What the Bill Actually Proposes
On February 16, 2026, the Speaker of Parliament officially published the Constitution of Zimbabwe Amendment Bill No. 3. While presented as a technical adjustment to electoral timelines and governance frameworks, this significant proposal carries broader implications.
The proposed amendment would lengthen the terms for both the president and parliament from five to seven years, consequently delaying the 2028 elections to 2030. Furthermore, the bill intends to eliminate direct presidential elections, substituting the popular vote with a selection process by parliament. This change would remove the direct voting rights of Zimbabwean citizens in presidential elections.
In keeping with the Constitution as revised in 2013, Emmerson Mnangagwa is now in his second and final presidential term, which will end in 2028; at the time of his retirement, he will have reached 86 years of age. However, if he is allowed to remain in office after 2028 (given that proposed constitutional changes will allow him to extend his stay by up to two additional years), then he will turn 88 years of age before finishing his term as president.
A Plan Years in the Making
The ED2030 campaign—named after President Emmerson Dambudzo Mnangagwa’s first names—has been quietly building within ZANU-PF for years, despite Mnangagwa’s public rejection of it. While he has consistently portrayed himself as a leader committed to constitutional principles and term limits, his conduct suggests otherwise.
ZANU-PF has held power in Zimbabwe since the country gained independence from Britain in 1980. The party holds a two-thirds majority in the lower house of parliament and exerts dominant influence over the upper house, largely through traditional leaders and allied figures who typically align with its agenda. This control enables constitutional amendments. As a result, if the party remains united, legislative approval is virtually guaranteed, regardless of public opinion.
Formal parliamentary procedures, including committee scrutiny and voting, are expected to occur on or after 16 May 2026. While it is still theoretically possible for the proposal to be rejected, such an outcome appears extremely unlikely.
Does It Even Need a Referendum?
One of the most debated legal issues concerning the bill is whether changes of such significance can be approved solely by parliament or if they require a national referendum.
Opposition leaders and analysts argue that constitutional amendments, particularly those affecting a sitting leader’s term, should be subject to a public vote. Opposition figure David Coltart stated, “Any amendment that effectively extends a leader’s time in office must go to a referendum.” He added that the ruling party is aware such a vote would likely defeat the proposal, which is why it will likely resist holding one.
The government, however, maintains a different stance. Justice Minister Ziyambi Ziyambi has asserted that, according to Section 328(5) of the constitution, a referendum is not necessary. This interpretation is now under legal scrutiny. A civil society organization, Ibhetshu LikaZulu, has filed a case claiming that altering key constitutional provisions demands broader public input through a referendum, and that the approach taken by ZANU-PF bypasses essential democratic safeguards and limits citizen involvement.
Violence at Public Hearings
Although the government has conducted public consultations—as required by the 2013 constitution—critics argue these efforts have ranged from symbolic gestures to outright hazardous undertakings.
In recent months, both police and unidentified armed individuals have been accused of threatening, intimidating, and physically assaulting opponents of the proposed constitutional changes.
On October 28, 2025, the Harare offices of the Southern African Political Economy Series Trust were severely damaged in a suspected arson attack. The night guard was reportedly abducted and the property’s gates locked by the attackers before they escaped—an incident occurring just hours before the Trust was set to host a forum for civil society and opposition figures addressing ZANU-PF’s constitutional plans.
Then, on March 1 in Harare, five to ten armed men wearing balaclavas forcibly entered the National Constitutional Assembly’s offices. Several members attending a meeting were attacked, among them prominent lawyer and NCA leader Lovemore Madhuku, who sustained injuries to his back, head, and face. Following the assault, Madhuku filed a case with the Constitutional Court aiming to suspend the amendment process altogether.
Cracks Inside ZANU-PF
One of the most politically sensitive aspects of this situation involves internal dynamics within the ruling party. Within the party, figures aligned with Vice President Constantino Chiwenga are actively opposing the proposed extension. Chiwenga is commonly seen as a potential successor to President Mnangagwa. According to two cabinet ministers who spoke anonymously, a tense confrontation took place between Mnangagwa and Chiwenga during cabinet discussions on the bill. Following this, Chiwenga skipped a ZANU-PF Politburo meeting, choosing instead to attend a funeral—an absence that fueled further speculation about growing divisions within the party.
Analysts have noted historical echoes in the current standoff. Constitutional lawyer Justice Mavedzenge cautioned that Mnangagwa risks facing a similar downfall to that of Robert Mugabe if he loses public and institutional support. Notably, it was Chiwenga who led the 2017 military intervention that ousted Mugabe and paved the way for Mnangagwa’s rise to power.
A Pattern Across the Region
It’s happening elsewhere too. From one African nation to another, familiar faces stay put by tweaking national charters. In 2013, Zimbabwe built rules meant to block leaders clinging to office past their time – a problem seen far and wide. Yet today, those safeguards are crumbling. The group once shaping that shield now chips away at it piece by piece.
Some observers think Mnangagwa could turn out stricter than the leader before him. His blueprint shows up again and again in big policy shifts – more power flows to the president. Meanwhile, institutions lose room to act on their own. Oversight weakens. Paths for holding leaders responsible grow narrower. Power tilts heavily toward the center
Most people in Zimbabwe face a real risk now. Their chance to choose the country’s leader themselves might vanish before ballots are cast again. This power has existed since the nation became free. Yet it may disappear when voting day returns.
,