Legal guru, Professor Lovemore Madhuku, a long-time advocate for democratic reform in Zimbabwe, says there is no legal or constitutional basis for extending President Emmerson Mnangagwa’s second term by two years, from five to seven.
The 22nd ZANU PF National People’s Conference, held in Mutare from 25–29 October 2025, resolved to extend Mnangagwa’s term from 2028 to 2030 and directed the Ministry of Justice to push for constitutional amendments to make this possible.
Under the 2013 constitution, the president is limited to two five-year terms.
This comes after ZANU PF leaders argue the extension is needed for continuity, stability, and to achieve development goals, but critics warn it undermines democracy and fuels political tensions.
Speaking to the BBC, Madhuku said Parliament has no authority to extend Mnangagwa’s time in office.
“Unfortunately, there’s no way they can change that if the proposal, as far as we hear it, is to extend the term of office of the president for the president to remain in office beyond the five-year limit which ends in 2028.
“There are certain things you can change in the constitution and others you cannot change.
“The president was elected by the people in 2023 to serve a five-year term. And the term, the five years given in the constitution, would apply to a person who has been elected for a given term. And that can only be done by the people themselves.
“So Parliament is out of it. The mistake they are having is that they think that Parliament can do anything, that Parliament can write anything into the constitution or remove whatever they want from the constitution. That is not how it works.”
Madhuku insisted that ZANU-PF cannot simply hold a referendum on whether to extend Mnangagwa’s term.
Instead, they would have to amend the Constitution’s two-term limit, which would require a referendum.
He also said it would be premature for anyone to go to court to challenge ZANU PF’s proposal to extend Mnangagwa’s tenure.
Madhuku said people should wait until the ruling party begins the formal process to amend the Constitution.
“It’s premature to challenge it. It is a proposal. It is nothing. It is nothing, as we said. We can’t say that when political parties meet, no matter how happy they are or how, you know, whatever they do, we can’t take the proposal.
“They said something when they met, and they called them resolutions. There’s nothing to take to court there. We’ll have to wait until they embark on a process. I’m talking about legally.
“But politically, it’s for different politicians to say what do they read into those kind of utterances. This is a political party that is very good at, you know, sending signals left, right and center.
“So until they start a process which will say has legal consequences, then we’ll start really saying, well, we can have a legal step.
“But what I know is that there will be elections, there must be elections in 2028.”
