A new constitution adopted in 2013 restricted a president to serving a maximum of two terms, further stating that any move to extend term limits would need to be endorsed by voters in a referendum – and, crucially, that a sitting president cannot benefit from any extension unless voters give their approval in a second referendum.
For the likes of Biti, the bill reverses these hard-fought gains, and could be challenged in the courts as, they argue, it violates the constitutional requirement that a referendum be held before the president’s term is extended.
But Zanu-PF is confident that it is acting constitutionally, saying there is no need for a referendum as, in its view, the two-term limit remains – all that is happening is that a term will now be seven, rather than, five years.
But critics fear that Zanu-PF – led by Mnangagwa – could be moving stealthily to scrap term-limits.
“If they can get away with two years what stops them from getting away with 20 years?” Biti said.
Chinamasa dismissed suggestions that the bill signals a “dramatic shift” in how Zanu-PF will govern Zimbabwe.
“It’s just that for this moment we would want to continue the political stability. We want to continue the economic development that is taking place since his excellency took over in 2018,” Chinamasa said.
“When his time is up we will choose other leaders.”
For the opposition, Zimbabwe is returning to its dark past.
“They are making the mistake that Mugabe made. That of closing [the democratic] space absolutely,” Biti said.
