A Firm Rejection of Amendment No. 3 and Political ManipulationSubmission with reference to Amendment No. 3 and response to Themba Mliswa – Eduzim News

By Tinos Hativaki

1. The dictionary meaning of a vision does not imply that the chief executive who sets it is mandated to personally see it through to completion. Vision 2030 is a ZANU PF/government vision, which can be pursued with or without His Excellency President Mnangagwa. While he may have set the vision, it is incorrect for politicians to exploit it as an opportunity to frogmarch the country into accepting constitutional amendments.

When the President’s term concludes, the next leader can continue pursuing the vision. There is no justification for prolonging the term of office of His Excellency under the guise of completing a vision. The President himself has consistently stated that he operates within the bounds of the law. It is therefore inappropriate for some individuals to seek to change the law through what amounts to a constitutional coup in order to force their agenda.

Government and party projects will always continue. We are all mortal. Furthermore, which projects cannot reasonably be completed by 2028? Time management must be applied. It is also worth questioning whether those pushing for these amendments are motivated by personal benefit those who stand to lose preferential contracts and advantages when leadership changes. Even after His Excellency completes his term, ZANU PF will remain in power.

2. It is incorrect for individuals such as Mliswa and Moyo to suggest that those coercing ZANU PF structures, using whatever authority they possess to sanitise constitutional changes, are acting lawfully. This position is misplaced. It is important to conscientise them that the liberation fighters who are passing on sacrificed their lives for an independent Zimbabwe.

It is equally wrong for opportunists to portray the President as having abandoned his comrades, leaving them vulnerable. ZANU PF is a revolutionary party, and while comrades are mortal, it is unjust to hasten their political demise while undermining their sacrifices for narrow political gain.

3. Regarding Moyo, while he is a respected academic, engaging him on this matter may be futile. History, particularly the Tsholotsho Declaration, reflects attempts to weaken ZANU PF especially by dividing war veterans and undermining the party’s strength, which is rooted in revolutionary and ethical principles.
4. It is not appropriate for Parliament to merely sanitise these proposed amendments. Accepting only one side ZANU PF reduces Parliament to a rubber stamp, effectively signalling to the nation and the world that a select few, empowered by financial influence, are driving constitutional changes that risk dragging citizens toward authoritarianism.
5. It is not our desire for ZANU PF to lose power. When the President stated, “2030 tinenge tichiko,” he meant that by 2030 ZANU PF would still be in power pursuing its programmes. He did not imply that he personally would still be in office, but rather that the party would endure.
6. I firmly believe that a referendum remains the most appropriate and democratic course for amending the 2013 Constitution.

Related