‘This Is A Coup By Law’: Top Lawyers React As ZANU PF Votes To Abolish Presidential Elections And Extend Rule

Legal Experts React To ZANU PF’s Plan To Change Constitution To Remove Presidential Elections

Zimbabwe’s leading legal minds have roundly condemned the ruling party’s audacious scheme to scrap direct presidential elections and stretch presidential terms to seven years, with some warning the proposed changes amount to a full constitutional hijacking carried out under the guise of routine amendment.

Justice Minister Ziyambi Ziyambi confirmed on 10 February 2026 that cabinet had waved through the Constitution of Zimbabwe Amendment No. 3 Bill of 2026. The document does not merely tweak the nation’s supreme law. It abolishes the people’s right to elect their president. It hands that power to parliament. It transforms five-year terms into seven. It eliminates the Zimbabwe Gender Commission. It guts transparency in judicial appointments. And it allows traditional leaders to openly engage in partisan politics.

Crucially, the government insists it needs no referendum to force these changes through.

This Is Not An Amendment; This Is A Replacement

Prominent lawyer and constitutional law expert Thabani Mpofu delivered a scathing legal analysis of the proposed bill. He argued that ZANU PF has fundamentally mischaracterised its own legislation.

“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. 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.”

Mpofu also questioned the moral standing of those driving the amendments. He pointed directly at the Justice Minister.

“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. ZANU PF is not even acting on the authority of its highest decision-making body, the Congress. Conference is not Congress. 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.”

Professor Lovemore Madhuku, a constitutional law lecturer at the University of Zimbabwe and leader of the NCA party, did not hold back. He declared the proposals dead on arrival as far as ordinary Zimbabweans are concerned.

“The proposed constitutional amendments are totally unacceptable. The movers of these proposals have no respect for the people. The NCA party and I will be counted among those who will be at the forefront of mobilising for the total rejection of these proposals.”

Madhuku further warned that bypassing a referendum would be legally unsustainable. He insisted that altering presidential term limits requires direct popular consent, not merely a parliamentary majority secured through whips and patronage.

If They Win Elections, Why Are They So Keen To Ban Them?

Advocate Fadzayi Mahere, never one to retreat from a fight, delivered a blistering verdict on the cabinet decision. Her remarks cut straight to the heart of the contradiction.

“They’ve destroyed our lives. Now they want to destroy the Constitution. Every citizen must be disgusted and alarmed by this abuse of power that will mark the final nail in the coffin of Zimbabwe’s democracy. It’s a shame. We need new leaders.”

In a subsequent post that ricocheted across social media platforms, she posed a question that has since become a rallying cry for opponents of the bill.

“If they win elections as they claim, why are they so keen to ban them? We need new leaders.”

Musa Kika, a legal practitioner and vocal commentator on constitutional affairs, offered a broader philosophical condemnation of the process. He described the amendments as a betrayal not merely of law, but of the nation itself.

“The law is an ass. It has no intrinsic values, nor does it have any inherent moral content. It is a tool; a weapon. And there are mercenaries, men and women ready, willing and able to lend service to other men and women of wicked intent and evil schemes. These can argue anything, the absurd even. They write laws, they interpret laws and they enforce laws under the guise of constitutional office and just ‘doing my job’. They are undertakers; enablers; conspirators; accomplices.”

Kika drew a direct line from the 2017 military intervention to the current legislative assault.

“Men who came to power through a coup are now moving to remove the powers of the military to ‘uphold’ the Constitution—as if anyone had told the coup-plotters in the first place that the army had any business stepping into civilian governance and taking over power. Of all the actions of President Mnangagwa since the coup in November 2017, this is the darkest move in his governance agenda. Whatever rules of engagement we thought as a nation we had agreed to in 2013, and whatever route we had decided for our nation, Mnangagwa and team have arrived to change course at will.”

Brighton Mutebuka, another legal voice, joined the chorus of condemnation, accusing the ruling party of deliberate deception. He argued that the bill’s title is a calculated lie.

“The term ‘amendment’ is a misnomer to mask disingenuity and an unprecedented attempt to replace a Constitution which in reality has been regularly paid lip service by the regime. Those fronting this monstrosity not only deceived their party, but the whole nation, setting about surreptitiously curating a fundamental reconfiguration of Zimbabwe’s institutional framework and trying to smuggle it through the back door.”

Mutebuka zeroed in on the cowardice he sees at the heart of the strategy.

“So cowardly are they that they are determined to hide away from the people through denying them a voice via a constitutionally mandated referendum, all in service of the grand personal ambitions of the incumbent in pursuit of garnering unfettered power which would instantly turn him into a modern monarch.”

Former opposition senator Jameson Timba confirmed that civil society and legal networks are already mobilising. He said the Defend the Constitution Platform would immediately consult lawyers and brief regional and international partners as part of efforts to oppose the changes.