WorldPREMIUM

Zimbabwe war veterans oppose Mnangagwa’s term extension

Veterans say proposed amendments are unconstitutional and bypass referendum

Author Image

Reuters

Zimbabwe President Emmerson Mnangagwa's tenure as president could be extended. File photo
Zimbabwe President Emmerson Mnangagwa's tenure as president could be extended. Picture: (Philimon Bulawayo/Reuters)

By Chris Takudzwa Muronzi

Harare ― Veterans of Zimbabwe’s liberation war mounted a court challenge on Tuesday to proposed changes to the constitution that would extend presidential terms from five years to seven, allowing President Emmerson Mnangagwa to stay in office until 2030.

Mnangagwa, 83, was meant to step down in 2028, after serving two five-year terms. There has been a succession battle in the ruling Zanu-PF party over how to replace him.

The president came to power after a 2017 coup ousted veteran leader Robert Mugabe. The latter’s 37 years in power were strongly supported by the veterans.

The challenge, by six veterans, alleges that the changes, which also include a provision that the president be elected by parliament rather than through a direct popular vote, are unconstitutional.

“The bill seeks, in both design and effect, to prolong the first respondent’s incumbency and current term of office,” the court papers read.

“That constitutional violation is further deepened by the manifest intention not to hold a referendum, notwithstanding the constitution’s entrenched safeguards against unilateral alteration of the democratic tenure framework.”

Zimbabwe government spokesperson Nick Mangwana said: “The people who have made this court application are only six individuals out of the thousands of war veterans in this country.”

He said they had a “right to represent themselves and their own personal views”.

Lovemore Madhuku, the lawyer representing the war veterans, said the cabinet amending the constitution and putting it to a parliamentary vote — where it will face little opposition from the Zanu PF majority that controls both houses — rather than holding a referendum, defied constitutional norms.

“If the court agrees, they [the veterans] will seek an order that nullifies the bill,” he said.

Would you like to comment on this article?
Sign up (it's quick and free) or sign in now.

Comment icon