HARARE – Zimbabwe is at the centre of a deepening constitutional dispute following the introduction of the Constitution of Zimbabwe Amendment Bill, 2026 that, if adopted, would take away Zimbabweans’ right to directly elect their President, with the head of state instead elected by Parliament.
The controversial Bill also seeks to extend presidential terms and apply them to the incumbent, raising fresh questions about whether President Emmerson Mnangagwa could legally remain in power beyond his current mandate.
The proposed reforms would significantly restructure the country’s electoral system, executive tenure, independent commissions, judicial appointments and constitutional oversight mechanisms.
According to the Bill’s memorandum, the amendments are intended to “reinforce constitutional governance, strengthen democratic structures, clarify institutional mandates, and harmonise Zimbabwe’s constitutional order with tested practices in other jurisdictions”.
Mnangagwa’s administration argues the changes will enhance stability, institutional efficiency and long-term national development.
But activists, constitutional lawyers and civil society groups contend that the scope and effect of the amendments go beyond reform and amount to a fundamental reconfiguration of Zimbabwe’s constitutional democracy.
One of the most far-reaching proposals is the repeal of Section 92 of the Constitution, which currently provides for the direct election of the President by voters.
Under the Bill, the President would instead be elected by Members of Parliament sitting jointly as the Senate and National Assembly.
A candidate would be required to secure more than half of the valid votes cast. If no candidate attains an absolute majority, a run-off vote would be held between the two leading candidates.
The election would be presided over by the Chief Justice or a designated judge and conducted in accordance with Parliament’s Standing Orders.
“The President must be elected by the members of Parliament in a joint sitting of the Senate and the National Assembly. (2) The election must take place at a joint sitting of Parliament following the swearing in of Members of the Senate and the National Assembly and the election of the Speaker of the National Assembly and the President of Senate, respectively, after every general election, or whenever necessary to fill a vacancy in the office of President,” read part of Bill.
The Bill proposes extending the term of office for the President, Vice Presidents and Parliament from five years to seven years by amending Sections 95, 143 and 158 of the Constitution .
“Crucially, the amendments explicitly state that the new seven-year term would apply to the “continuation in office” of the incumbent President and current Parliament, notwithstanding constitutional provisions that prohibit retrospective extension of terms.
Critics argue this clause directly undermines entrenched term-limit protections that were introduced under the 2013 Constitution.
The Bill removes references to a “First Vice-President,” aligning the Constitution with previous amendments. It also raises the qualification threshold for the Attorney-General, requiring eligibility for appointment as a Supreme Court judge rather than a High Court judge .
The requirement for the President to appoint the Prosecutor-General on the advice of the Judicial Service Commission is repealed, with the Bill citing potential conflicts of interest as justification.
Section 120 of the Constitution would be amended to increase the number of Senators from 80 to 90, with the President granted power to appoint 10 Senators based on “professional skills and other competencies”.
The Bill also proposes sweeping changes to electoral administration. It establishes a new Zimbabwe Electoral Delimitation Commission, appointed by the President, to oversee the delimitation of electoral boundaries.
As part of this restructuring, references to the Zimbabwe Electoral Commission (ZEC) are removed in several constitutional sections.
Voter registration, the compilation and maintenance of voters’ rolls, and custody of electoral registers would be transferred from ZEC to the Registrar-General. The stated rationale is administrative efficiency, given the Registrar-General’s custodial role over national records.
Judicial appointment procedures would be revised by repealing several subsections of Section 180, reducing the role of public interviews and formal recommendations in favour of presidential appointment after consultation with the Judicial Service Commission.
The Bill also amends Section 212 by altering the mandate of the Defence Forces, replacing the obligation “to uphold this Constitution” with a duty to act “in accordance with the Constitution”.
Entire constitutional bodies are repealed under the Bill. These include the Zimbabwe Gender Commission, whose functions would be transferred to the Zimbabwe Human Rights Commission, the National Peace and Reconciliation Commission, which would be abolished entirely.
The Bill also repeals several functions of the Zimbabwe Electoral Commission and reallocates them to the Registrar-General and the proposed Delimitation Commission.
Section 281 is amended to repeal restrictions on the political conduct of traditional leaders, with the Bill stating that their code of conduct should instead be regulated through an Act of Parliament .
Activist Youngerson Matete has warned that the amendments would deprive citizens of their right to directly choose national leadership, describing claims made by opposition leader Nelson Chamisa that “there is no constitution to defend” as reckless.
Meanwhile, Senator Jameson Timba, Convenor of the Defend the Constitution Platform, has formally cautioned Cabinet that it lacks constituent authority to substitute the will of the people on issues of democratic succession.
“This moment presents an opportunity to give practical effect to those commitments by ensuring that constitutional processes remain firmly anchored in popular consent,” Timba stated.
Constitutional lawyer Advocate Thabani Moyo also weighed in on the saga, taking to X he wrote:
“ZANU PF is not seeking to amend the constitution; it is attempting to introduce an entirely new constitution outside people participation and a referendum; a step it plainly has no right to take. The reasons are these:
- A constitution is enacted by the people as a whole, not by a single political party or faction.
- Parliament’s law‑making power is confined to legislating for the peace, order, and good governance of the country. Replacing the constitution exceeds that mandate and undermines this constitutional principle.
- ZANU PF is governing on a contested mandate following the disputed 2023 elections. Even then, it failed to garner a two thirds majority. It therefore lacks the legitimate popular authority to impose a new constitution unilaterally. In fact, the minister under whose hand this affront is being engineered lost his party’s internal elections. He has no moral authority to talk about the will of the people, let alone constitutionally legislate in its purported defence.
- Fundamental constitutional change requires broad, inclusive national consensus. Attempting to substitute a constitution through partisan processes would violate the principles of legitimacy and popular sovereignty.
- ZANU PF is not even acting on the authority of its highest decision making body, the Congress. Conference is not Congress.”
