BY STAFF REPORTER
Zimbabwe’s parliament was locked in a heated debate on Wednesday over a proposed constitutional amendment that would scrap direct presidential elections and extend the terms of office for the president, parliament and local authorities from five to seven years.
The Constitution of Zimbabwe Amendment (No. 3) Bill [H.B. 1, 2026] proposes that future presidents be elected by parliament rather than through a direct vote by citizens.
Opposition legislators strongly opposed the proposals, arguing that the changes would weaken democratic participation and erode constitutional rights.
MP James Chidhakwa described the bill as fundamentally undemocratic, arguing that legislators were elected to represent the people rather than replace their choices.
“We were indeed elected by the people to represent the people and not to substitute our judgment for theirs,” he told the National Assembly. “Sovereignty resides in the citizens of Zimbabwe and leadership renewal must come through elections, not through arithmetic in this House.”
Questioning the need to lengthen political terms,Chidhakwa challenged the government’s justification that additional time was required to achieve development goals.
“Do we honestly need an extra two years to balance the budget? Do we need another two years to close our porous borders…?” he asked.
Richard Madzivanyika, MP for Chikanga, argued that the proposal conflicted with constitutional provisions guaranteeing citizens the right to vote in elections. He said removing the direct election of the president would undermine those rights.
Madzivanyika also warned that electing a president through parliament could create opportunities for corruption.
“An MP getting USD275 per month can easily be bribed with USD200 000,” he said.
Other legislators raised concerns about provisions allowing traditional leaders to participate in partisan politics and the proposal to merge the Zimbabwe Gender Commission with the Zimbabwe Human Rights Commission.
John Kuka, MP for Mkoba South, argued that political involvement by chiefs could undermine public trust in their leadership.
“Once a chief becomes politically aligned, community members will lose confidence in his or her ability to act fairly and impartially,” he said.
Justice, Legal and Parliamentary Affairs Minister Ziyambi Ziyambi defended the bill, saying constitutions must evolve to meet changing national circumstances.
He described constitutions as living instruments that should respond to prevailing realities and argued that longer terms would promote policy continuity and reduce election-related expenditure.
“Frequent election cycles often result in Governments spending substantial periods preparing for elections rather than focusing on implementation,” Ziyambi said.
Supporters of the bill said longer terms would provide greater certainty for investors and allow government more time to implement development programmes.
Farai Jere, MP for Murewa West, said investors often adopt a wait-and-see approach ahead of elections, delaying major investments.
Fortune Murechu, MP for Nkulumane, likened the country’s development trajectory to an aircraft that was “cruising nicely”, arguing that election cycles risked disrupting economic progress.
Some supporters also drew on religious arguments. Some said said the number seven symbolised purity and perfection in the Bible and suggested that seven-year terms could bring victory and restoration.
The lengthy debate was marked by frequent points of order and interruptions. At one stage, the Speaker called for medical assistance after a member became unwell during proceedings.
The bill also proposes allowing the President to appoint 10 senators based on academic and professional expertise. Another MP supported the proposal, saying it could strengthen policymaking and assist government in addressing national challenges.
The House adjourned at 7:14 p.m. without concluding debate on the bill.
While ZANU-PF legislators argued that the proposed changes would improve governance and allow more resources to be directed towards service delivery, opposition members maintained that the amendment represented an attempt to weaken democratic accountability.
Debate on the bill is expected to continue today.
