Dimitry Peskov

A REVOLUTIONARY IS A CATALYST… A catalyst is substance that accelerates a chemical reaction by providing an alternative, lower-energy pathway, without being consumed or permanently changed in the process. While participating in reaction intermediates, the catalyst is regenerated, allowing it to speed up reactions repeatedly. Be a catalyst!

ZANU PF’s National People’s Conferences have already ratified the CAB3 resolution, and such resolutions are binding as the party’s official position. Both the 21st (Bulawayo, 2024) and 22nd (Mutare, 2025) Conferences explicitly resolved to extend President Mnangagwa’s leadership beyond 2028 to 2030, directing government to amend the Constitution accordingly. In ZANU PF tradition, the National People’s Conference is the supreme policy-making body between Congresses. Its resolutions are binding on the Central Committee and Politburo, which must implement them. 21st Conference (2024, Bulawayo): Delegates resolved that President Mnangagwa’s term be extended beyond 2028 to 2030, and instructed government to initiate constitutional amendments. 22nd Conference (2025, Mutare): Reaffirmed the 2024 resolution, commending President Mnangagwa’s leadership and consolidating support for CAB3. heraldonline... Once adopted, these resolutions become the party line. Parliamentarians and party structures are expected to vote and act in accordance with them. So it is official that CAB3 is the party’s position and binding. The Conferences extended his mandate to 2030, meaning he remains the party’s chosen leader until then. Congress vs. Conference? While Congress elects leaders, Conferences can extend mandates and direct constitutional changes. This is not “ultra vires” but consistent with ZANU PF’s practice of using Conferences to consolidate leadership continuity Do we have historical archives? 1. 1999 Victoria Falls Conference— Endorsed fast-track land reform. 2. 2004 Esigodini Conference—-Endorsed Mugabe as sole candidate for 2008. 3. 2014 Harare Conference- Expelled Joice Mujuru, reshaping succession. CAB3 is not ultra vires — it is a binding resolution of ZANU PF’s National People’s Conferences, which extended Mnangagwa’s leadership to 2030. Past practice confirms that Conference resolutions are authoritative party positions, implemented by the Central Committee and government.

𝗔 𝗪𝗛𝗢𝗟𝗘 𝗙𝗜𝗡𝗔𝗡𝗖𝗘 𝗠𝗜𝗡𝗜𝗦𝗧𝗘𝗥 𝗧𝗥𝗔𝗩𝗘𝗟𝗜𝗡𝗚 𝗧𝗢 𝗠𝗔𝗧𝗔𝗕𝗘𝗟𝗘𝗟𝗔𝗡𝗗 𝗧𝗢 𝗖𝗢𝗠𝗠𝗜𝗦𝗦𝗜𝗢𝗡 𝗔 𝗕𝗢𝗥𝗘𝗛𝗢𝗟𝗘? It’s a travesty that a whole Minister of Finance flew from Harare to Matabeleland with bodyguards, to commission a borehole and a garden, in a country where every Zimbabwean has a borehole at their home. How does a Finance Minister in a country that aspires to be a middle-income economy and the breadbasket of Africa, celebrate the commissioning of a mere borehole and garden on a continent where Libya under Gaddafi (30 years ago) built the world’s biggest irrigation system known as the Great Man Made River, to make Libya the biggest dessert farm in the world? How does Zimbabwe become an advanced middle-income economy when our Finance Minister spends his day commissioning boreholes instead of commissioning hundreds of kilometers of canals from Tokwe-Mukosi to turn the whole of South West Zimbabwe into fruit and sugarcane plantations?

𝗭𝗔𝗡𝗨 𝗣𝗙 𝗗𝗜𝗗 𝗪𝗔𝗡𝗧 𝗔𝗡 𝗘𝗫𝗘𝗖𝗨𝗧𝗜𝗩𝗘 𝗣𝗥𝗘𝗦𝗜𝗗𝗘𝗡𝗧 𝗜𝗡 𝟭𝟵𝟳𝟵, 𝗧𝗢 𝗨𝗡𝗜𝗧𝗘 𝗧𝗛𝗘 𝗡𝗔𝗧𝗜𝗢𝗡. Contrary to the false claims being made by Patrick Chinamasa, Jonathan Moyo and others in ZANU PF that the party never wanted the direct election of the President before independence, an article written by RW Apple Jr., titled “Rhodesians Split On British Proposal Threatens Peace Parley In London,” published in the New York Times on 15 September, shows otherwise. According to it, the Patriotic Front, which consisted of ZANU and ZAPU, presented its own constitutional proposal at Lancaster House, clearly stating that it wanted an executive President. According to Edison Zvobgo, a member of the Patriotic Front negotiating team, their proposed constitution wanted an executive President who would be head of the armed forces, with powers to take property from white settlers and dismiss colonial-era civil servants in order to replace them with workers aligned to the party’s ideology. The only reason Zimbabwe could not implement these measures—common to many liberated nations—was because it was forced to accept the Lancaster House Constitution, which required Zimbabwe to use the parliamentary process to select the head of state as Rhodesia and to retain white civil servants which resulted in our government currently owing over $1 billion in pension obligations to former white Rhodesians who are living in the UK. ZANU and ZAPU later amended the Lancaster House Constitution in 1987 to end Gukurahundi, fulfilling their objective of establishing a system that directly elects an executive President who could unify the nation beyond tribal divisions, as envisioned in 1979. According to the Hansard of 3 November 1987, Edison Zvobgo, then Minister of Justice, outlined five reasons why ZANU PF preferred an executive President: 1. It reflected an African system, distinct from the British and American models. 2. It ensured political stability and effective national leadership. 3. It avoided structural conflict. 4. It removed titular division. 5. It reduced democratic distance between the executive and the people. He argued that indirect election fostered sectorial, regional, and tribal interests, which had contributed to conflicts such as the liberation war and Gukurahundi. According to him, an executive President would be elected by the whole nation and remain accountable to all citizens, not just a specific clan or tribe. In a statement made on 30 November 1987, the then Minister of State Security and the current President of Zimbabwe, Emmerson Mnangagwa, said:
“The [1987] bill is clearly testament to the party’s irrevocable belief in the people’s will, expressing the democratic aspiration of Zimbabweans—their right to choose and elect a President through the popular vote.” So, if Edison Zvobgo and the current President are anything to go by, ZANU PF adopted the direct election of the President in 1987 and we have had it for 39 years precisely because it reflects the aspirations of the Zimbabwean people—to choose their leader through popular vote, in line with an African system that would move away from colonial practices and unite the nation beyond tribal and sectional lines. Now, if this was the reasoning behind abandoning the Lancaster House system of indirect presidential election, it must follow that CAB3 seeks to achieve the opposite—by reintroducing a Western colonial-style system that removes direct accountability to the people and risks shifting power toward narrower regional or tribal interests. So why are we making the change to a system we rejected in 1987?