HARARE, Zimbabwe — Zimbabwe’s Senate has overwhelmingly approved a controversial constitutional amendment bill that could extend President Emmerson Mnangagwa’s stay in office until 2030, a move that has intensified political tensions and drawn criticism from opposition parties and human rights advocates.
The Senate voted 75 to 4 in favour of the amendments on Wednesday, following the National Assembly’s approval of the bill on June 18 by 216 votes to 42. The legislation now returns to the lower house for final approval of technical adjustments before being presented to President Mnangagwa for assent.
If signed into law, the constitutional changes would significantly reshape Zimbabwe’s political landscape. Among the most notable provisions is the extension of presidential and parliamentary terms from the current five years to seven years, effectively prolonging Mnangagwa’s final constitutionally permitted term until 2030.
The bill also seeks to replace direct presidential elections with a parliamentary appointment process, giving Parliament the authority to select the country’s president instead of voters. Critics argue that the proposal would fundamentally alter Zimbabwe’s democratic system by removing citizens’ direct role in electing the nation’s leader.
More Read
The proposed amendments have become one of the most divisive political issues in Zimbabwe, where the ruling ZANU-PF party has maintained power since the country’s independence in 1980 and commands a comfortable majority in Parliament.
Government officials have defended the reforms, saying they are designed to promote political stability and ensure continuity in governance. When the Cabinet endorsed the proposals earlier this year, it said extending the terms of office would provide sufficient time for long-term development programmes to be completed without disruption.
However, opposition parties have strongly rejected the amendments, describing them as an attempt to consolidate power and weaken democratic institutions.
More Read
Former senator and senior opposition figure David Coltart argued that changes of such constitutional significance should be subjected to a national referendum rather than being decided solely by Parliament. He maintained that the proposals affect Zimbabweans’ constitutional right to elect their president directly and therefore require public approval.
Although Zimbabwe’s Constitutional Court recently dismissed an earlier legal challenge against the amendment bill, opposition leaders have vowed to continue pursuing judicial remedies in an effort to halt its implementation.
Human rights organisations have also expressed concern over the political climate surrounding the proposed reforms. Human Rights Watch has alleged that authorities and unidentified armed individuals have intimidated, harassed and assaulted several people opposed to the amendments. The organisation has called on the government to respect citizens’ rights to peaceful expression and political participation.
Authorities, however, insist that the constitutional amendment process has complied with legal requirements, citing nationwide public consultations, parliamentary hearings and written submissions that they say demonstrated broad public support for the reforms. Government officials have also rejected calls for a referendum, arguing that the existing legislative process is sufficient under the law.
President Mnangagwa, 83, assumed office in November 2017 after the military intervened to remove longtime leader Robert Mugabe, ending Mugabe’s 37-year rule. Mnangagwa subsequently won presidential elections in 2018 and secured a second term in 2023.
More Read
The latest constitutional amendments are expected to face continued legal and political challenges even if they receive presidential assent. Observers say the outcome could have far-reaching implications for Zimbabwe’s democratic governance, electoral system and political future.
As the country moves closer to enacting the proposed reforms, attention is now shifting to the final parliamentary procedures and the possibility of further court challenges that could determine whether the amendments ultimately take effect.
