Djanko

@NdumisoSoks @AdvoBarryRoux 🎯

@AdvoBarryRoux I said the long time ago that money was for Ramaphosa to accept the rigged elections in Zimbabwe

Mustafa Hazim lied about the Phala Phala buffalo purchase, he never bought any Buffalos from Cyril Ramaphosa. The foreign currency that was found at Phala Phala farm came from Zimbabwe! It was even more than $580,000!

@brianmari3 @thisischigz Yuwii. Aah isupageti 😅😅😅. Zvinhu zvacho so.

@thisischigz I do not mind if you are using you brains. It is yours. I do not bother. 1. With my own brain I will not abuse it to that extent. 2. What ever criteria was used to identify people to recall from parliament I do not know but facts tell me two things, there are some who were left and some who were recalled first. My own mind record this. 3. @DubekoSibanda approached courts to challenge his own recalling. CCC was not party to the proceedings. 4. CCC had 28 Senators and that is enough to stop CAB3 without even going to court. 5. I can read with my two eyes and see the names of two lawyers that stood for Sengeso Tshabangu in a case that had @DubekoSibanda as first applicant. My eyes cannot miss that. 6. I also read his affidavit during that time. 7. Why is he not telling you that Phulu the co- counsel of Uriri is in senate on the basis of his representation in Dubeko case. 8. Dubeko is not telling you this. Instead he want all of you to believe his own lies that he was elected as member of CCC. His own interpretation, yet s124(1)(a) of constitution states clearly that constituency members are elected directly by registered voters. 9. I put here the state prescribed paper that define the laws governing the election of Members of National Assembly. The one that gave his candidature. It clearly refers to a section of Electoral law and the terms on the provision. People who are registered voters nominated him as MP. How then can a constituency member of Parliament claim to belong to a party. Tell us how. He cheats you by pretence. 10. I put for you the state prescribed paper describing the nomination process of a member of a Party on a party list. Read it for yourself that it refers to a law and the details of party that submit Party list are on top, followed by office bearers then the party lists candidates. 11. How then is a constituency member a party member and using what law. 12. After we produced the ZEC notice here also attached to rubbish all the nonsense that was in Dubeko's affidavit, it is Lewis Uriri who approached Malaba to make a Practice note, here attached, to try and turn the ship and give relevance of the 2022 CCC nonsense. 13. The CCC that was voted for in 2023 won 28 Seats out of 80 seats. That is permanent for five years, how will CAB3 get 2/3rds Majority? Is Dubeko telling you that Phulu is a Senator after the event? 14. Is Dubeko telling you that CCC submitted names of its designated office bearers? 15. If he was telling people when he went to challenge Tshabangu that his case is strong and his strong case was not "strong enough" what makes us believe his story? 16. Any reasonable man must look at the chess pieces being used. 17. No matter what, a Lawyer who is professional will not represent Tshabangu to put him in Senate and pull Dubeko from NA but now want to represent Dubeko on CAB3 to be decided by Phulu and Tshabangu. Hakuna democracy yakadaro. 18. Lawyers draft affidavits and all deponents declare that they rely on legal advise of their lawyers. 19. This is the fraud that ,@lawsocietyofzim is deliberately condoning

@Zvoutete14 @Hermish19 Madness is one person thinking over one million people are blind supporters. That is utter madness- whatever one starts with that level of misdiagnosis is going to fail.

@Hermish19 That’s where the challenge is. He has endeared himself to the “blind supporters”. It will take something and someone special to replace him.

“The best thing now is to start afresh and build a new opposition…..”. Ndokutaura zve uku. Zvinofadza kana Hopewell ava kuona kuti kungoshoropodza pasina shanduko hakubatsire chinhu. Ngapavambwe bato rinopikisa idzva rakasimba rinogadzirisa mhosho dzose kana hutera hwese hwaChamisa. Hatingave nyika ine mikweshwa yevarume inomukira zuva rega rega kushoropodza umwe murume. Ngativambei bato rinopikisa rinoita zvido zvevanhu tienderere mberi. Kumaruva uko ndinovimba vachagamuchira bato idzva zvakanaka.

@LeaderGeneral1 @KingsolomonZW @saliwe94546 @daddyhope We are interested in what he will do as president because that is what will impact our country. Hopewell's name is a misnomer, he must be named Hopeless or Blockwell. These two names suits that dull fella well.

@KingsolomonZW @saliwe94546 He is 8 years younger than @daddyhope but he wanted to be Hopewell's President, what has he done to be President, zero, Hopewell has every right to question . Kwana iwe

I can't believe we have adults like Hopewell who accuse NC who is 8 years younger than him of being passive. what have you done? Zero NC is not the problem it's not his to fix things it's the government responsibility... kwanai Mkoma 1978. 1971

The irony here is remarkable! Nobody said you forced @nelsonchamisa to speak, nor did anyone accuse you of manufacturing recordings. The point raised was simpler, disagreement with Jameson Timba’s methods is not automatically opposition to constitutionalism, and isolated recordings without context should not become substitutes for full analysis. You seem to believe scrutiny should only move in one direction. When you publicly disagreed with Chamisa before, on strategy, opposition conduct, electoral participation, organisation, you called it accountability, independent thinking, journalism. Yet when others question interpretation, context, or motives around selectively released material, suddenly they become “clowns” enabling dictatorship. That is not accountability. That is gatekeeping acceptable opinion. Also, stop reducing every disagreement to blind hero worship. Some of us are defending principles. Context matters, evidence matters, consistency matters. Supporting constitutionalism does not mean suspending critical thinking whenever politically convenient. On Jameson Timba: defending the Constitution is every citizen’s right. Equally, questioning strategies, political vehicles, or methods is also a democratic right. The two are not mutually exclusive unless democracy only applies to views you approve of. And invoking South Africans laughing at Zimbabweans is emotional rhetoric, not an argument. Zimbabwe’s political problems were not created by citizens asking for context before rushing to condemn. They were created by intolerance, selective outrage, and elevating personalities above principles. If recordings are authentic, debate them fully. Provide context. Challenge the substance. But spare us the performance where disagreement itself becomes evidence of moral failure. Independent thinking cannot be praised when it aligns with you and condemned when it does not.

@MadzivaNehemiah @jahman_adamski Thousands got killed in the streets in Iran and that regime still stands today strong enough to challenge America and Israel in war. The streets rarely work in military dictatorships.

@jahman_adamski Makes sense you go to the streets get killed and injured mahara yield nothing like what happened in Mozambique .You cant go in the streets in a military state .You just get killed end of story !!A heartless fool will tell people to do that!!

BREAKING ‼️🚨 If you thought the Daily News audio was bad, listen to this one. Nelson Chamisa is heard confirming, while speaking to someone “in the system”, that he is there to block people from going into the streets. He even says that when his own friend, Advocate Thabani Mpofu, proposed that people should go into the streets, he dismissed and rubbished the idea. What makes this even more shocking is the derogatory manner in which he speaks about a man who stood with him throughout his political career. This is the same Thabani Mpofu who introduced Chamisa to his chambers so that he could become an advocate, represented him for free in the 2018 election case, and reportedly lost clients because of his association with Chamisa. Yet here is Chamisa, speaking to someone in the system, trashing the very man who stood by him and confirming in his own words that he is there to make sure people do not go into the streets. Listen to Chamisa in his own words.

@Goromigos @EmmanuelGumbo_ @MacBelts Give him that pirimechuwa audio.🤣🤣🤣. That was the worst kind of selling out- collapsing a whole party for what... kuita shaisano here vakomana aah hakuna leadership yakadero.

@EmmanuelGumbo_ @MacBelts 😎

Hanzi thank you dzedzi 😂😂😂😂😂😂. Ndo cream dela cream here iyi? Muzvipamhe futi nevanhu ava.

@MacBelts Haiwavo. You pretend not to know that munhu akanaka akarara. Play Dr Love(Paul Matavire)'s 2005 song on the subject you will get educated!

@politicalprophe @SandileMakeba 🤣🤣🤣

@SandileMakeba Mnangagwa who came into office through a military coup d'e'tat spareheaded by Chiwenga not Chamisa is pushing to be in office until 2030. Chiwenga betrayal and absence were purchased by zvigananda

Sausan Matsunga, who entered Parliament after being handpicked by Nelson Chamisa, not Tshabangu, has been given a car obtained from stolen state funds by Chivhayo after praising Hezekiah's CAB3 agenda. Chamisa’s betrayal and absence were also purchased by Zvigananda.

@ProfJNMoyo Nonsense. A term as defined in that constitution has lower and upper limit. Lower limit is 3years and upper limit is 5years here mathematically represented:Term =3years=<time=<5years. This what the framers were trying to communicate in that legal jargon.

Why the Phrase in Section 328(7) of the Constitution — “An Amendment to a TERM LIMIT PROVISION the Effect of which is to extend the length of time that a person may hold or occupy any public office does not apply in relation to any person who held or occupied that office, or an office, at any time before the amendment” — Does NOT Apply to the Amendment of Section 95(2)(b) in the Constitution of Zimbabwe (Amendment No. 3) Bill, 2026. With all respect for every thoughtful voice that has been expressed in this vital national conversation on the Bill, it has to be said that the Constitutional Court’s landmark reasoning in the precedent setting Marx Mupungu v Minister of Justice (CCZ 7/21) case, especially in paragraphs 43 to 51, speaks with undiminished, decisive and binding authority directly to the heart of the current debate on the Bill’s amendment to section 95(2)(b). Distinguished colleagues and fellow citizens — including highly respected legal minds and public officials such as @DavidColtart (see, for example, his considered X-post here: [x.com/DavidColtart/s…]) — have rightly focused on the phrase in section 328(7): “the effect of which is to extend the length of time that a person may hold or occupy any public office.” Many view this phrase as an absolute barrier that can only be overcome by a national referendum. However, the undeniable fact is that the Constitutional Court has already given the precise, authoritative interpretive framework in its binding Mupungu judgment. That framework powerfully exposes the fundamental distinction at the core of this issue — the very same distinction it drew so clearly when analysing the relationship between section 186(2) and section 328(7), which distinguished “term limit provisions” from “age limit provisions”, and showed that the latter are not affected by section 328(7). When the same reasoning about sections 186(2) and 328(7) in paragraphs 43 to 51 of the Mupungu judgment is applied, mutatis mutandis, to the relationship between sections 95(2)(b) and 328(7), the path forward becomes unmistakably clear and inescapable. Section 328(7) is written in plain, unambiguous language whose objective is crystal clear. It prevents an amendment to a term-limit provision — one whose effect would extend the time a person may hold public office — from applying to anyone who held that office (or an equivalent) before the amendment. As defined in section 328(1), a “term-limit provision” is one that “limits the length of time that a person may hold or occupy a public office.” A careful, respectful reading of section 95(2)(b), guided by the Court’s wisdom in paragraphs 43 to 51 of Mupungu, reveals a decisive structural difference. Section 95(2)(b) does not impose a standalone, fixed, purely personal calendar-based cap. Instead, it expressly declares that the President’s term “is five years [now proposed in the Bill as seven years] and coterminous with the life of Parliament” — currently five years under section 143(1) and proposed to become seven years. Section 95(b)(b) is inextricably linked to the outcome of a general election. This is a deliberate institutional and democratic mechanism that synchronises executive and legislative electoral cycles — not an independent, non-renewable personal term detached from the people’s democratic will. In their plain and grammatical sense, sections 95(2)(b) and 143(1) draw a sharp, unmistakable line between tenure defined by a specific, fixed and determinate length of time (with a known beginning and a calculable end) and tenure shaped by variable electoral and parliamentary events. The true purpose of section 95(2)(b), as the Constitutional Court would clearly perceive it through the lens of paragraphs 43 to 51 in Mupungu, is to regulate the timing of national elections themselves — not to create or protect the kind of personal term limit on individual tenure that section 328 was designed to safeguard. The decisive question is therefore this: What is the meaning of a “term-limit provision” in the context of section 328(7) that should be used to examine the Bill’s amendment to section 95(2)(b)? The definition in section 328(1) points unmistakably to the limitation of a specific “length of time” — not a duration determined by external democratic milestones such as electoral cycles and the timing of general elections. It therefore follows — firmly and correctly — that a constitutional provision whose length is expressly made coterminous with the life of Parliament does not and cannot establish the rigid, person-specific term contemplated by section 328. The Bill’s amendment to section 95(2)(b) simply does not engage a “term-limit provision”, within the meaning and context of subsections (1) and (7) of section 328 at all. Lengthening the electoral cycle from five to seven years consequently does not extend any protected term-limit provision. With the greatest respect, opponents of Clause 4 in the Bill have—like the court a quo in Mupungu which failed to distinguish “term limit provisions” and “age limit provisions”—not fully distinguished the electoral-cycle framework in section 95(2)(b) from genuine personal term limits under subsections (1) and (7) of section 328. Some have, perhaps unintentionally, applied an overly broad interpretation by concentrating almost exclusively on the “effect” language in section 328(7), while bypassing the essential threshold question: whether section 95(2)(b) even qualifies as a term-limit provision in the first place. This risks misunderstanding the carefully drawn concept of “term-limit provisions” as they relate to presidential tenure. The amendment in the new section 95(2)(b) proposed by the Bill does one thing only: it adjusts the length of the democratic electoral cycle that will apply equally and fairly to every future presidential office-holder. It does not amend or extend any non-renewable or fixed personal term limit for any individual. As the Constitutional Court powerfully reinforced in paragraphs 43 to 51 of Mupungu by reference to dictionary definitions, a “term” means “a fixed or limited period for which something, for example, office, lasts or is intended to last” — a period with a known beginning and a determinable end. A provision tied to the life of Parliament and the outcome of general elections simply cannot, and does not, denote any such fixed personal term. To illustrate this with insurmountable clarity: within one and the same five-year electoral cycle, one President may serve three years while another serves only two—depending on when each assumes office—without resetting the clock to start a new fresh five-year term. This inherent variability decisively negates the very idea that section 95(2)(b) prescribes the specific, determinate term limit that section 328(7) protects. Any other interpretation would do violence to the ordinary and grammatical meaning of the phrase “term-limit provision.” By powerful and irrefutable contrast, the Constitution contains an exhaustive list of 15 genuine term-limit provisions, as clearly set out by the Attorney General, Honourable Virginia Mabiza (see her authoritative post here: [x.com/AGZim_Official…]). These include fixed five-year terms (renewable once only) for heads of the Defence Forces, Police, Intelligence and Prisons Services; six-year terms (renewable once) for members of the Zimbabwe Electoral Commission and the Prosecutor-General; and the Auditor-General’s maximum twelve-year tenure. Amendments extending incumbents’ time in these roles would unquestionably fall within the protective shield of section 328(7). The Bill’s amendment to section 95(2)(b), however, rests on an entirely different and far more fundamental constitutional footing. It is a reform of the democratic electoral cycle itself. The Constitutional Court’s meticulous and binding distinction in paragraphs 43 to 51 of the Mupungu judgment between what truly constitutes a term-limit provision and what does not; therefore, applies here with compelling, conclusive and binding force. The narrow focus on the “effect of which” phrase in section 328(7), without first confirming that section 95(2)(b) is a term-limit provision at all, mirrors — with respect— the very conflation of term limits with other types of limits (such as age limits) that the Constitutional Court decisively rejected in 2021 in the Mupungu case. In light of all the above, section 328(7) does not, and cannot, apply to the amendment of section 95(2)(b). The Bill’s proposal to adjust the presidential electoral cycle stands constitutionally unencumbered by any incumbent-protection rule. The way forward for this Bill is not merely lawful — it is constitutionally clear, sound, and fully consistent with the Mupungu precedent. This analysis is respectfully offered here in the sincere hope that it brings greater clarity, understanding, and unity in the interest of the shared commitment to constitutional fidelity and the recognition of and respect for the democratic will of the people of Zimbabwe as expressed in the Constitution of Zimbabwe (2013), taking into account the authority of binding case law!

I have seen certain lewd fellows of the baser sort being disingenuous, blaming @nelsonchamisa for the behaviour of adult individuals simply because they emerged from a candidate selection process. Candidate selection is a qualitative and considered exercise, grounded in a person’s past conduct and demonstrated capacity, not a crystal ball into their future actions. So what exactly was expected, that @nelsonchamisa should have prophesied that in 2026 a candidate would turn around and twerk for ZANU PF? To hold Chamisa accountable for the independent choices of grown individuals is simply clutching at straws. @Laque_davis @vanhuva @LightyNoShiriko

@MutonhodzaPhil @MikeRhomeo @BrianRupiya You pretend to talk law ..except that which your Tshabangu claimed to possess did not exist. Your Mudenda , Zanu courts & Tshabangu just created a non existent post of SG. You call that hapurakata purakata nonsense law. Such level of unreasoning explains why zim is sinking fast.

@MikeRhomeo @BrianRupiya "Possession is 9/10 of the law" a legal reality: the person claiming to the position first is presumed the holder. The burden of proof falls on the claimant to prove otherwise. It’s essentially easier to keep position than it is to win it back. ⚖️📦 law is an arse!

Nelson u are part of the problem Those candidates in CCC were a result of yo CISP u saw every name &endorsed it u chose PR members yoself u called them hwasvisvisvi hwema candidates Learn 2accept yo failures 4 future correction & reflection Kuti CCC ndokuti Chamisa

@cdemlambo You want an internal document with sensitive personal information and evaluations to be made public? How can that be possible. Those with the right credentials in that organisation are privy to the report.

To date there is no publicly available CiSP report why,becoz the process was shambolic & it imposed candidates who were rejected at community level.Things were changed at the A/Chambers in Hre & some candidates were shocked that they were not on the list after going thru B/mwana!

@MacBelts Have you not heard of people who are employed after a rigorous interview process who fail to deliver or pass probation? Do you blame the interview process for that?

I have an ask 👋👋. Is that woman a product of the selection process?

@MacBelts That woman is a product of her character. Selection process doesn't create or recreate a human being. Character is character despite the selection process. Even on planet Mars, that woman will still be that woman!

@Mr_Okays @DMwonzora Mwonzora was behaving like Matsunge when Zanu pf was buttering his bread- with his rational disputation nonsense - when they ammended the constitution. We have a pandemic of stomach politicains in this country.

Wow!! @DMwonzora recalled this Susan Matsunga from parliament in 2020, but in 2023 Chamisa brought her back in. Now here she is. People are pretenders in this world.

@LynneStactia @The_Tax_Chief Bereka mwana was about community consensus candidates to locate power back to the people- anodiwa kwete anoda. The predicament in Zim, as NC lamented, is many of those who vie in politics are unfortunately job seekers/bottom feeders. So no amount of vetting can correct that.

During the Bereka-Mwana in 2023 , we were told that these people who were candidates were chosen by the Spirit of God and they were top-drawer products. This is why saying walking away from CCC was a blessing angers me… what happened to the vigorous vetting processes and the Spirit of God?

@adv_fulcrum Tomboti akapiwa madonations on behalf of the party, akashandiswa kukambeina nekufambisa basa reparty, zvakaipeko? Maida ashandise mweya here pazvinhu zvinoda mari. People/orgs have to donate. Vanhuwe ngatidzamise pfungwa. A donation is just a donation- hazvireve kutengwa.

Let’s talk about the fuel—first— because we cannot pretend that we have not heard these recycled allegations. So according to you Tagwirei sponsored Chamisa with fuel in 2023 for his campaigns. In 2023 we were adults and alive and know that Chamisa never bussed his supporters to attend his rallies. That being an undisputed fact, what was this fuel for? Please break it down for us, we are patient. We’ve just come from witnessing the wonderful miracle of the resurrection of our God and friend, Jesus Christ. Our hearts are at peace!

CITIZENS must KNOW and see the SCIENCE behind the MADNESS. There are now multiple factions within ZANU PF. Each faction either seeks endorsement from President Chamisa or desires to become the legitimate occupant of what he represents. The face of change in Zimbabwe. There is nothing inherently wrong with that ambition. What is deeply problematic is the resort to falsehoods and calculated lies. These are deployed in the hope of forcing his involvement or eroding his standing so that their faction may inherit the alternative political space. What we are witnessing is a coordinated pattern of gaslighting and narrative manipulation. Bloggers. Opinion writers. Even newspaper editors. Some are embedded within this desperate anti Chamisa campaign. This has nothing to do with substance. It reveals a profound lack of confidence in their own political identity. The strategy is clear. To systematically debrand Chamisa so that their absence of a credible brand can masquerade as the only viable alternative. THIS TOO LIKE OTHER ATTEMPTS BEFORE WILL NOT WORK!!!!

@LynneStactia Whatever you say in the showdown between NC and Skirid Rebhara in 2028, my fighter is NC. NC's political sins pale into insignificance when juxtaposed to Rebhara's.

At some point, a MDCA/CCC official had a break-in in their car ,and they went to report the incident to the police. However, unbeknown to them, the car they were driving belonged to Kubakwake not the MDCA/CCC, they were told off for reporting that car to the police. This left the official exposed and vulnerable. #NoTo2030