IS ZANU WRONG TO AMEND THE CONSTITUTION IF THEY HAVE MAJORITY?

That question gets to the absolute heart of the matter. It is a powerful question because it challenges the assumption that majority rule and democracy are the same thing. The answer requires moving beyond the simple procedural argument—”we have the votes, therefore we can”—and examining the deeper constitutional, democratic, and ethical principles at stake.

While ZANU PF possesses the parliamentary numbers to pass these amendments procedurally, the search results demonstrate a powerful consensus among legal experts, civil society, and even the text of the Constitution itself: ZANU PF is profoundly wrong because they are abusing the law to destroy the very democracy the law is meant to protect. Their parliamentary majority, in this context, is not a source of legitimacy but the instrument of a “constitutional coup” .

Here are the five fundamental reasons why a parliamentary majority does not make this right.

1. The Prohibition on “Self-Dealing”: The Incumbent Cannot Benefit

This is the most specific and unambiguous legal barrier. Section 328(7) of Zimbabwe’s Constitution explicitly prohibits an incumbent president from benefiting from any change to term limits . The framers of the 2013 Constitution specifically anticipated this exact scenario. Even if Parliament amends the term limits, the change cannot legally apply to President Mnangagwa. For him to remain in office beyond 2028, he would need to benefit directly from the amendment, which is unconstitutional .

ZANU PF’s neutral members admitted the party is specifically trying to avoid a referendum and is instead seeking a legal path around this clause, or through the courts . This isn’t constitutionalism; it is targeted evasion of a specific rule designed to prevent a president from using power to extend power.

2. The “Basic Structure” Doctrine: Some Things Are Not For Sale

The strongest substantive argument is that constitutions are not ordinary laws. They are the supreme contract of a nation. Legal scholars and critics argue that certain “basic structures” of a constitution—such as democracy itself, the sovereignty of the people, and regular elections—cannot be destroyed, even with a 100% parliamentary vote .

Removing the right to vote for a president (Section 92) and extending terms from five to seven years is not a “reform”—it is a fundamental redesign of the state that eliminates the democratic character of the republic. Constitutional lawyer Dickson Nare describes this as “abusive constitutionalism”: using the tools of constitutional change to undermine the constitution itself . You cannot use democratic procedures to permanently end democracy and claim the procedure justifies the result.

3. Distortion, Not Representation: The Majority is “Manufactured”

ZANU PF’s parliamentary supermajority is not a genuine reflection of the national popular will. This is critical. The majority they wield was “manufactured” through the systematic destruction of the opposition via recalls.

Furthermore, Zimbabwe uses a First-Past-The-Post (FPTP) system. As detailed in the analysis of the 2026 Bill, FPTP allows a party to win a massive parliamentary majority with well under 50% of the total popular vote by strategically drawing constituency boundaries and benefiting from wasted votes . In 2018, Mnangagwa won just over 50% of the presidential vote, yet ZANU PF secured a two-thirds parliamentary majority . The majority they are using to strip citizens of their vote was itself obtained through a system that distorts the true weight of the people’s voice. It is a democratic deficit, not a democratic mandate.

4. Regional and Continental Law: It Is an “Unconstitutional Change of Government”

Zimbabwe is a signatory to the African Charter on Democracy, Elections and Governance (ACDEG) . Article 23 of this Charter explicitly defines an “unconstitutional change of government” as including “any amendment or revision of the constitution… which is an infringement of the principles of democratic change of government” .

Therefore, this amendment is not just a violation of Zimbabwean political norms; it is a breach of continental treaty obligations. ZANU PF is wrong because they are attempting a civilian coup d’état dressed in legislative robes, a tactic explicitly condemned by the AU.

5. The Removal of a Pre-Existing Right: This is Subtraction, Not Alignment

The government has tried to justify the move to a Parliamentary system by comparing it to Botswana or South Africa. This argument is fundamentally deceitful .

• Botswana and South Africa built their systems from independence.
• Zimbabwe is removing a right that currently exists.

This is not alignment; it is disenfranchisement. As the analogy used by critics explains: if your neighbour has never been allowed in the grocery store, that is their system. But if you have always gone into the store to pick your own food, and you are suddenly locked in the car and told your representatives will pick for you, you haven’t been “aligned” with the neighbour—you have been demoted . You cannot justify taking a right away simply because someone else never had it in the first place.

Summary: Law vs. Constitutionalism

There is a critical distinction between having the law on your side and having constitutionalism on your side.

• Law is the text.
• Constitutionalism is the culture of restraint; it is the willingness of those with power not to use every legal technicality to crush their opponents .

ZANU PF is wrong because they are acting like a victorious army occupying territory, not a ruling party in a democracy. They are using their majority not to govern, but to insulate themselves from the verdict of the voters they fear. In doing so, they are proving that their majority was never about representing the people—it was about finding a way to stop listening to them altogether.