There is no Constitution to defend in Zimbabwe – We shredded it in 2017

When Nelson Chamisa says “there is no constitution to defend,” he is not merely offering rhetorical flourish, he is pointing to a hard truth about Zimbabwe’s constitutional and political trajectory.

Because in November 2017, when Robert Mugabe was forced from office in a military-backed transition, we did not just change the man in the presidential palace. We enacted a constitutional ambush, one whose consequences continue to ripple through our politics, economy and society.

The military’s intervention and Mugabe’s subsequent resignation marked the end of nearly four decades of one-man rule. But while many Zimbabweans breathed a sigh of relief, credible human rights monitors warned that the takeover lacked constitutional legitimacy.

The army remained in the streets. The judiciary ruled that the takeover was “lawful”, effectively sanctioning military involvement in politics.

Then came the amendments to the 2013 Constitution. For example, Constitutional Amendment No. 1 of 2017 removed public interviews for appointment of the Chief Justice and placed that power directly into the presidency.

These changes eroded judicial independence, undermined the separation of powers, and signalled that the constitution was becoming a menu of amendments rather than a set of inviolable rules.

By applauding the end of Mugabe’s rule without insisting on a constitutionally sound process, Zimbabweans inadvertently endorsed the idea that “changing the man” is more important than safeguarding the system.

If law can be bypassed for a cause we agree with, we should not be surprised when it is bypassed for one we do not agree with.

Today, we see fresh moves that build on that same mindset,the governing ZANU‑PF has signalled plans to extend Emmerson Mnangagwa’s presidency beyond the 2028 limit by amending the constitution yet again.

The same architecture of constitutional manipulation is being recycled, albeit under different branding.

When constitutional protections become optional, so too does the rule of law. When the judiciary answers to the executive, accountability becomes fiction, and corruption is no longer scandal but system.

Without a stable constitutional order, economic reforms falter, investment dries up, and the only thing left running is rent-seeking and instability.

Zimbabwe is still floundering,production in agriculture and mining has remained erratic; unemployment remains extremely high,foreign investment remains hesitant. Investors ask: can property rights be trusted here? Can the judiciary really enforce a contract?

So yes, Chamisa is correct when he says there is no constitution worth defending at the moment. Because what Zimbabweans replaced in 2017 was not just one leader, it was the idea that the constitution stood above politics.

We shredded that notion then. And now we see its wreckage everywhere.

If we are ever to rebuild a constitution worth defending, we must demand more than a new name in the presidency. We must insist on mechanisms,power that is checked, courts that are independent, laws that are stable, and transitions that respect the rule of law.

Anything less is simply building on the same flawed foundation.