harare24dmin By Hector Madzima
2030 is not the first amendment to hit the 2013 constitution. The constitution was amended several times and we didnt hear any defenders of the constitution crying wolf. In a recent wave of political theatre, several opposition figures have risen to denounce the alleged threat to Zimbabwe’s 2013 Constitution, particularly concerning the proposed extension of President Emmerson Mnangagwa’s term until 2030. Senator Jameson Timba, Hon. Job Sikhala, Mbuso Fuzwayo, Hon. Prince Dubeko Sibanda, and Obert Masaraure have all issued statements urging Zimbabweans to unite in defense of the Constitution. However, their sudden fervor raises questions about their true motivations.
Since the adoption of the 2013 Constitution, there have been several amendments that these very individuals failed to oppose or even comment on:
2015 Amendment: This amendment altered the qualifications for presidential candidates and the number of ministers, yet there was no public outcry from these opposition figures.
2017 Amendment: It granted the President the power to appoint the Chief Justice and other senior judges, undermining judicial independence. Again, no objections were raised by the aforementioned individuals.
2019 Amendment: This amendment allowed for the extension of the women’s proportional representation quota in Parliament, yet these figures remained silent.
2021 Amendment: It introduced provisions for the appointment of the Public Protector and adjustments to the Public Service Commission, but no statements were made by these opposition leaders.
2023 Amendment: This amendment addressed the composition and functions of the National Council of Provinces, yet the same individuals did not voice any concerns.
Their silence during these critical changes suggests a selective defense of the Constitution, one that conveniently aligns with their current political interests.
Lovemore Madhuku is the only authority in the opposition political figures who has been consistent on the constitution since his days of the National Constitutional Assembly before it became a political party.
The recent outcry appears less about constitutional integrity and more about a desire to reclaim political relevance. With the proposed term extension potentially sidelining their ambitions, these figures now position themselves as defenders of democracy. However, their previous inaction speaks volumes about their commitment to constitutional principles.
Beyond the amendments, there remains the pressing issue of aligning existing laws with the 2013 Constitution. Over 400 acts of Parliament are yet to be harmonized with the Constitution’s provisions. These opposition leaders have not championed this cause, choosing instead to focus on issues that serve their immediate political interests.
Zimbabweans deserve leaders who prioritize the nation’s well-being over personal ambition. The selective defense of the Constitution by certain opposition figures undermines the very principles they claim to uphold. It is imperative that political leaders demonstrate consistency, integrity, and a genuine commitment to the nation’s democratic values.
The Constitution is not a tool for political maneuvering. Those seeking to revive defunct political careers should try other means not to use 2030 as a means to selectively stand for the constitution. Pamwe pese apa maivepi when the constitution was being amended? Tikwanirei please.
