Zim GBC News Staff
HARARE – A fiery Twitter Spaces debate between legal scholar Dr Justice Mavedzenge and political scientist Professor Jonathan Moyo has intensified public discourse around the controversial Constitutional Amendment Bill No. 3, with observers widely concluding that Mavedzenge delivered a decisive legal takedown of arguments suggesting the amendments do not require a referendum .
The debate, which trended across Zimbabwean social media platforms, centred on whether the proposed constitutional changes—which seek to extend presidential and parliamentary terms from five to seven years—must be subjected to a national referendum .
According to analysis by journalist Hopewell Chin’ono, which scored the encounter, Dr Mavedzenge emerged victorious on points, demonstrating superior command of constitutional provisions and case law .
The publication noted that “Dr Mavedzenge was factual and stuck to the facts,” while “Prof Moyo relied on opinions and dismissed case law” .
At the heart of the legal disagreement is Section 328 of the Constitution of Zimbabwe, which prescribes special procedures for amending certain clauses. Dr Mavedzenge anchored his argument on Section 91(2), Section 95(2), and a Constitutional Court judgement in the matter of Marx Mupungu versus the Minister of Justice, which declared that any changes to term limits must be taken through a referendum .
“A term length is part of the term limit,” Mavedzenge asserted during the debate, directly countering arguments that the proposed extension from five to seven years somehow circumvents constitutional safeguards .
The scholar also took aim at what he described as deliberate misinterpretation emanating from official quarters.
“Yesterday, the Attorney General’s office published what I consider to be a mischievous and misleading flier which said the only term limit for the President is on Section 95,” Mavedzenge said .
“I can understand when persons without basic legal knowledge fail to make a connection between Section 91(2) and 95, but I struggle to understand how a whole AG’s office can miss this. It has left me with two questions: Is the AG afraid of telling the President the truth that the term limit provision is primarily Section 95(2) as per the Constitutional Court’s decision, or is the AG complicit in these sinister plans to subvert the Constitution?”
Mavedzenge reserved his sharpest criticism for those dismissing the binding nature of the Mupungu judgement.
“The court drew a distinction between age limit provisions on one hand and term limit provisions on the other hand,” he explained .
“The court did not just make a passing comment or mere suggestion when it identified section 95(2), it made a binding ruling which simply says you can change age limit provisions but you cannot touch term limit provisions without seeking the approval of Zimbabweans—and that distinction was essential” .
In a stinging rebuke, Mavedzenge added:
“I can understand if this is coming from a first-year student of law because usually we do not go that deep in explaining legal concepts, but I worry when I hear that coming from someone at the level of a minister or a former minister who has dealt with the law” .
Professor Moyo, who has been a vocal advocate for the amendments, maintained his position that a referendum is not constitutionally mandated. He argued that the legislative process was still in its early stages and accused his opponent of preempting parliamentary proceedings .
“You are saying there must be a referendum. There should not be a referendum because you say so? There should be one because the Constitution says so. The Constitution is clear about which cases require a referendum,” Moyo countered during the exchange .
“The legal making exercise in Parliament only started on Tuesday with the counting of the 90 days during which you, me and other people should engage, debate and so forth and then parliament will be seized. Even before MPs start their work, you are preempting that exercise, you are reaching queer analytical arguments, to cast aspersions” .
However, legal consensus appears to align with Mavedzenge’s interpretation. Veteran lawyer and former ZANU PF legal secretary Patrick Chinamasa has previously acknowledged, in remarks made at a party conference in Bulawayo and captured on video, that the proposed changes would actually require two referendums—one to alter presidential term limits from five to seven years, and another to extend the sitting president’s tenure to 2030 .
Douglas Mwonzora, leader of the MDC and a participant in the constitutional drafting process, has also weighed in, dismissing claims that parliamentary procedures alone could suffice.
“The constitution is very clear about what needs to be done to amend the term limit clause,” Mwonzora said at a press conference in Bulawayo .
“All lawyers of substance agree on that point. (Professor Lovemore) Madhuku agrees, I agree, (Professor) Welshman (Ncube) agrees, Tendai Biti agrees, (Patrick) Chinamasa agrees. But half-baked lawyers like Ziyambi Ziyambi will say things that do not make sense” .
Mwonzora specifically pointed to Section 328(7) of the Constitution, which explicitly bars incumbents from benefiting from term-limit extensions without a referendum .
“Ziyambi is very, very wrong. The Constitution says the clause that deals with term limits must be amended in the same manner as the Bill of Rights, through a referendum,” he said .
Constitutional lawyer Lovemore Madhuku has also cautioned that while the legal process remains incomplete, any attempt to bypass a referendum would be unconstitutional.
“If they proceed to send the Bill to the President without a referendum, then they can be blocked. There are several legal means, including the courts,” Madhuku said .
The proposed Constitutional Amendment No. 3 Bill, whose principles were adopted by Cabinet in February 2026, seeks to replace direct presidential elections with a parliamentary vote, extend presidential and parliamentary terms to seven years, and transfer delimitation responsibilities from the Zimbabwe Electoral Commission to a new body .
Opposition politicians and civil society organisations have vowed resistance, with the National Democratic Working Group petitioning the African Union and describing the developments as a “coup in motion” .
The Constitutional Defenders Forum warned that the amendments threaten to reverse gains made in 2013.
“The proposed amendments seek to reverse these gains and drag Zimbabwe back to the pre-2013 constitutional order,” the Forum said in a statement, warning that key proposals would concentrate power and weaken institutional oversight .
Political analyst Luke Tamborinyoka, writing in a special report, described the process as deeply flawed. “Through this Bill, ED is yet again brazenly breaching his oath of office. He specifically swore to do three things: to defend, uphold and obey the Constitution. He did not swear to amend it, as he is now doing for the third time,” Tamborinyoka wrote .
He also questioned the motives behind avoiding a referendum.
“If the people had truly said they want him to stay on, the regime would not be so afraid to go back to the populace, who have been deliberately sidelined and made strangers to such a gargantuan process that directly affects every facet of their daily lives” .
The debate has exposed deep divisions not only between government and opposition but within the legal fraternity itself. Critics note that some lawyers who previously held firm positions on the need for a referendum have since revised their views—a shift that Mavedzenge and others attribute to political pressure rather than constitutional interpretation.
As one legal observer noted,
“You cannot decide, through opinion or political argument, whether a referendum is required or not. That question is not settled by what anyone thinks. It is settled by what the law says. If the Constitution requires a referendum, then you must subject yourself to it. That is how constitutional democracy works.”
Concerns have also been raised about the independence of the judiciary.
“We know that the judiciary in Zimbabwe is captured. We know how they are going to rule, but the whole world knows the truth, that if they rule in favour of these amendments going ahead without a referendum, they are simply a captured judiciary without the respect that is required for anyone holding such an important office, and history will remember them as such,” one commentator remarked.
Tamborinyoka drew parallels with previous judicial controversies, recalling that in May 2021, High Court judges ruled that the extension of Chief Justice Luke Malaba’s term was unconstitutional, only for a Constitutional Court bench comprising interested parties to overturn that ruling four months later .
The Constitutional Amendment Bill now awaits further parliamentary processing, with the 90-day period for public engagement underway. Whether the government will ultimately submit to a referendum or attempt to bypass it remains uncertain, but legal experts warn that any attempt to circumvent constitutional requirements will face vigorous challenge.
As Madhuku put it:
“This Constitution belongs to the people. Any attempt to change its core architecture without their direct consent will be contested, like what we did for us to have this 2013 Constitution. We are alert to all the developments” .
FOLLOW US FOR REAL-TIME UPDATES:
· X (Twitter): @ZimGbc
· Instagram: @ZimGBCNews
· TikTok: @ZimGBCNews_01
· Facebook: Zim GBC News
· YouTube: Zim GBC News
Get real-time alerts on WhatsApp:
+263 773 820 323
For in-depth coverage, visit our website: www.zimgbcnews.co.zw
Zim GBC News | Global News From An African Perspective©2026