Mfundo Mlilo

#BREAKING Former finance minister Tendai Biti, journalist Fanuel Chinowaita, lawyer Nyasha Gerald and Morgan Ncube have been arrested in Mutare. Biti was leading a team from the Constitutional Defenders Forum which is mobilising support against planned constitutional amendments

@ShumbaTapiwa @DenfordNgadzio1 @nelsonchamisa Yeah - it’s crazy how you guys dont see the problem with this kind of politics. The gradual destruction of people’s movement and the anti-institutionalism that this perpetuates. Everything is about one man and one man only!

Our President @nelsonchamisa remains solid, standing and firm. This transition from the past to the new movement is the most important thing to ever happen. There will be no historical entitlements and chinhu chedu. The response from the ground has been incredible. The foundation is very solid. 2. Our concerns about the Constitutional Amendments cannot be addressed by social media posts only. President Chamisa knows that to challenge an oppression you need a solid movement. This is what he is building. Its a real Chapwati by the look of things. A million members before launch target surpassed in a flash. 3. The response from the grassroots has been emphatic. Only President @nelsonchamisa can build such a gigantic political organisation in Zimbabwe. We all rally behind him because we appreciate his value and importance to our cause. 4. The next phase is the programme of action to address the crisis of governance in all its facets including the constitutional amendments. This will be done in a structured, coordinated and organised manner. 5. Efforts by others are noted and appreciated. We are united in spirit but we have our own organization to pursue the broader citizen agenda. Its now a matter of days and weeks not years or months. Watch the space.

@Jamwanda2 @BarbaraRwodzi Where the minister needs to direct her attention is equitable access to opportunities. This sector remains dominated by foreign & ”white interests”. Some local and black entrepreneurs struggle to access opportunities due mainly to high entry costs sciencedirect.com/science/articl…

@Jamwanda2 @BarbaraRwodzi And in comparison to other regional partners the Zimbabwe government has created a conducive environment for the tourism sector to thrive! tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.10…

Ministerial awards: Z. Ziyambi, third position; Dr Masuka, second position; Minister Rwodzi, overall first position!!!!

@Jamwanda2 @BarbaraRwodzi Particularly, for Vic Falls we see a consistent effort by the gov to create the right mix of policy support, enterpreneurial environment and support for place based leadership. The Vic Falls stock exchange, Special economic zone status & interplay between state & private sector!

@kwirirayi But you also called him a nice “kid”. What does that mean?

@kwirirayi Nice kid???

I want to put it out there. Learnmore Jonasi is a nice kid. Full disclosure I have asked him for an interview and he has chosen not to. But this is not an issue. My gripe with him is has an enthusiasm for making Zimbabweans look stupid. He has better material. He should do that. I disagree with Lebo M that he is a wannabe. I just wish he didn't sacrifice us for his fame.

@ProfJNMoyo I think the law is technical but once we get lost in these technicalities we may lose the insurance that the constitution places on overstaying in office. The referendum must be treated as continued consent esp that the current head of state will benefit from these changes!

My brother Mfundo, there's no elephant in the room. First, it's indeed true that Zimbabweans have participated in the direct election of the President since 1990. Also true is their participation has been a tragic tale of the violently disputed conduct and outcome of that direct election; leading to deepseated divisions, polarisation of society and toxic politics. It's not rational to keep doing a bad and harmful thing, simply or only because you have been doing it over many years. Secondly, unlike in 2000 and 2013 when the referendum was a political decision, now the referendum on amending the Constitution is no longer a political issue, which in 2000 was politically decided by the Constitutional Commission and in 2013 was politically decided by parties to the GPA; now it's a legal issue decided by the Constitution, which is very clear on what chapters or sections are amended by requiring a referendum versus those that don't require it. Only amendments to Chapter 4, Chapter 16 and Section 328 require a referendum. The Amendment No. 3 Bill does not have one clause whose amendment requires a referendum under the Constitution Therefore calls for a referendum are political, not constitutional; and, as such, they don't meet the muster!

MUCHENA’S USE OF LIES TO PURPORT TO DEFEND THE CONSTITUTION IS NEITHER REVOLUTIONARY NOR CONSTITUTIONAL: Air Marshal (Retired) Henry Muchena—and the unnamed co-authors, alleged retired generals and senior civil servants said to be ex-combatants who cowardly remain incognito behind his 15 March 2026 letter—are correct that the liberation struggle rested on two fundamental, non-negotiable pillars: land and universal adult suffrage (“one man, one vote”). These principles remain sacred. They are, however, blatantly lying in claiming that “universal adult suffrage” or “one man one vote” ever meant the direct election of the head of state or government, during the liberation struggle or since independence in 1980. Nowhere under the sun has universal adult suffrage equated to direct election of the executive. Muchena’s claim—and that of his incognito retinue—is neither revolutionary nor constitutional; it is embarrassingly ignorant, illiterate, uninformed and dangerously misinforming. It is irresponsible and dangerous to elevate illiteracy to the level of political noise for purposes of conflict-mongering. Universal adult suffrage simply means the right of every adult citizen to vote without discrimination based on race, sex, property or similar qualifications. It concerns who is entitled to cast votes, not the voting system used to cast them. This right applies equally to direct and indirect voting systems alike. The heroic armed struggle under PF-Zapu and Zanu-PF delivered universal adult suffrage in 1980. But this triumph did not confer direct “one man one vote” elections for President Canaan Banana or Prime Minister Robert Mugabe in the 1980 and 1985 polls. Rather, the triumph restored the right to vote for every adult Zimbabwean under the voting system that prevailed. Both Banana and Mugabe were creatures of indirect election in 1980 and 1985: Banana chosen by Parliament sitting jointly as an electoral college; Mugabe appointed by the President as the leader commanding a majority in the House of Assembly. Muchena’s lie betrays both the liberation legacy and constitutional truth. Far from an aberration, this truth is powerfully affirmed by notable global examples. The United Kingdom has upheld full universal adult suffrage since 1928—extending the vote to all women—yet its citizens have never directly elected their Prime Minister. Voters choose Members of Parliament; the leader of the party commanding a majority in the House of Commons becomes Prime Minister through parliamentary confidence. India, the world’s largest democracy, constitutionally entrenched universal adult suffrage in 1950 (Article 326 of the Constitution) for direct elections to the Lok Sabha (Parliament), yet the Prime Minister is indirectly elected by the parliamentary majority. Even the United States, the world’s oldest democracy, having perfected near-universal suffrage through the 15th, 19th, 24th and 26th Amendments, deliberately rejects a nationwide “one person, one vote” for its President, electing the executive instead through 538 members of the Electoral College. These examples demonstrate conclusively that “one man, one vote” secures the right to participate—it does not dictate the mechanism for voting to choose the executive. To claim otherwise is not merely historically false; it is intellectually bankrupt. Direct Presidential Election: A Relic of the Failed 1987 One Party One-Man Rule Socialist State Retired Air Marshal Henry Muchena and the political interests he fronts peddle a blatant lie that Zimbabwe’s current direct presidential election is rooted in the liberation struggle’s galvanising mantra for “one man, one vote.” Nothing could be further from historical truth and constitutional reality. As pointed out above, universal adult suffrage was secured in 1980. The direct election system for the Executive Presidency was deliberately engineered—not to express that suffrage—but to entrench a legislated one-party, one-man-rule socialist state anchored squarely in the 1987 Unity Accord between PF-Zapu and Zanu-PF. The Accord itself (see attachment), signed at State House on 22 December 1987, is unambiguous about this. 1987 Unity Accord Agreement: Zimbabwe's Model for the current Directly Elected Executive President 1. That Zanu (PF) and (PF) Zapu have irrevocably committed themselves to unite under one political party. 2. That the unity of the two political parties shall be achieved under the name Zimbabwe African National Union (Patriotic Front), in short Zanu (PF). 3. That Comrade Robert Gabriel Mugabe shall be the First Secretary and President of Zanu (PF). 4. That Zanu (PF) shall have two Second Secretaries and Vice-Presidents who shall be appointed by the First Secretary and President of the Party. 5. That Zanu (PF) shall seek to establish a socialist society in Zimbabwe on the guidance of Marxist-Leninist principles. 6. That Zanu (PF) shall seek to establish a one party state in Zimbabwe. 7. That the leadership of Zanu (PF) shall abide by the Leadership Code. 8. That the existing structures of Zanu (PF) and (PF) Zapu shall be merged in accordance with the letter and spirit of this Agreement. 9. That both parties shall, in the interim, take immediate vigorous steps to eliminate and end the insecurity and violence prevalent in Matabeleland. 10. That Zanu (PF) and (PF) Zapu shall convene their respective congresses to give effect to this Agreement within the shortest possible time. 11. That in the interim, Comrade Robert Gabriel Mugabe is vested with full powers to prepare for the implementation of this Agreement and to act in the name and authority of Zanu (PF). Signed at State House this 22nd day of December 1987. Joshua Mqabuko Nkomo, President, (PF) Zapu. Robert Gabriel Mugabe, First Secretary and President of Zanu (PF). Paragraphs 5 and 6 expose the Accord’s twin objectives. Pursuant to this vision, the Constitution of Zimbabwe Amendment (No. 7) Act, 1987 fused Head of State, Head of Government and Commander-in-Chief into an imperial Executive Presidency. On 30 December 1987 Mugabe was installed as Zimbabwe’s first Executive President—after he was elected not by direct popular vote—but indirectly by Parliament sitting jointly as an electoral college. Where were Muchena, his retired generals and senior civil servants who are ex-combatants when this happened in 1987? The direct election introduced in March 1990 was designed as a mere formality under an anticipated monolithic political project for a de jure one party state. The current system is therefore no liberation dividend at all; it is the constitutional offspring of a failed ‘Marxist Leninist’ project for one party one man-rule which was rejected by history itself. It is ironic and laughable that self-anointed guardians of democracy and citizen empowerment now scramble as defenders of the Constitution to salvage the directly elected Executive Presidency—a tarnished vestige of a botched de jure one-party, one-man-rule socialist state. Its very persistence defies the 2013 Constitution's sacred cornerstone: a multi-party democratic system enshrined in section 3(2)(a) as the bedrock of good governance. How the Directly Elected Executive President Agenda to Legislate for a One Party One-Man Rule Failed In 1987, armed with the Unity Accord and the Constitution of Zimbabwe Amendment (No. 7) Act, Zanu-PF meticulously constructed the framework for a one-party, one-man-rule socialist state. The vision was unambiguous: by 1990, prevailing social, economic and political conditions would enable the direct election of an unchallenged President Robert Mugabe as an imperial Executive President, while Zanu-PF—legislated as the sole lawful party—would confront no opposition whatsoever. This ideological and constitutional template gave birth to Zimbabwe’s current voting system of direct presidential elections. Yet history unfolded with radical, irresistible force to torpedo this agenda. Scarcely 10 months after the 22 December 1987 Unity Accord, Edgar Tekere’s expulsion from Zanu-PF in October 1988—ignited by his blistering public denunciation of corruption and the one-party state push—produced the first fatal fracture. Tekere promptly launched the Zimbabwe Unity Movement (ZUM) in April 1989: the inaugural credible urban opposition party championing multiparty democracy, free-market reforms and an end to nepotism. Compounding this internal rupture, the fall of the Berlin Wall in November 1989—just weeks before the PF-Zapu and Zanu-PF Unity Congress—and the subsequent implosion of the Soviet Union demolished the global ideological scaffolding that sustained one party one-man rule. Simultaneously, the World Bank’s seminal November 1989 report, Sub-Saharan Africa: From Crisis to Sustainable Growth, proclaimed “good governance” under multiparty democracy as the indispensable precondition for development—demanding accountable institutions, judicial integrity, reduced corruption, free press and citizen empowerment—thereby directly assaulting the legitimacy of legislated one-party regimes across Africa. Zimbabwe’s 1990 election campaign itself laid bare the fragility of the one party state project. Widespread irregularities, harassment in ZUM strongholds and brazen violence—including a daylight assassination attempt on candidate Patrick Kombayi and multiple ZUM-linked killings—inaugurated the pattern of what has become the scourge of disputed elections. Although Zanu-PF achieved a parliamentary landslide, ZUM’s two seats, ZANU-Ndonga’s one and Tekere’s commanding 20% presidential vote obliterated any legal argument for legislating a de jure one-party state. By late 1990 the agenda lay dead within Zanu-PF itself. The July 1990 adoption of the World Bank/IMF-sponsored Economic Structural Adjustment Programme (ESAP)—with its sweeping neoliberal reforms of liberalisation, subsidy removal and privatisation—delivered the decisive ideological coup de grâce, and accelerated the irreversible retreat from a legislated one-party state. These six epochal developments transformed the 1987 constitutional design of an imperial Executive Presidency from a triumphant formality into a perpetual source of intractable national contestation. All told, the adoption of ESAP delivered the decisive blow to Zanu-PF’s ambition to entrench the imperial Executive Presidency of 1987. By aligning with the World Bank’s 1989 governance framework—articulated in its seminal study Sub-Saharan Africa: From Crisis to Sustainable Growth—ESAP mandated multiparty democracy and good governance as prerequisites for sustainable development. This dismantled the legislative path to a de jure one-party socialist state, despite the de facto political dominance secured through the PF-ZAPU and Zanu-PF Unity Accord. This hybrid ESAP-inspired model proved irreconcilably incompatible with the Constitution of Zimbabwe Amendment (No. 7) Act of 1987. That transformative legislation fused Head of State and Government, abolished the Prime Ministership, and designed direct presidential elections from 1990 as mere formalities to cement an unchallenged vanguard party and its leader after an anticipated one-party triumph. Over the ensuing 36 years, this constitutional dislocation has unleashed a relentless cycle of disputed elections, political violence, societal polarisation, corruption, policy paralysis, inefficient service delivery, infrastructural decay, and toxic governance—severely undermining national development and social progress. In the immediate wake of ESAP, retrenchments and subsidy cuts sparked urban unrest, exposing the 1987 framework’s structural obsolescence as an instrument of one party one-man rule. The failure to enact a de jure one-party state, coupled with retention of an imperial Executive Presidency in a nominal multiparty system, spawned early fissures: plummeting voter turnout, protests, and simmering social discord. A subsequent attempt to reform the presidency via a new constitution collapsed in 2000. Even the 2013 Constitution, forged as a compromise between Zanu-PF and the MDC formations and enshrining multiparty democracy as a foundational principle, failed to rectify the core incompatibility by retaining the 1987 directly elected Executive President. The military coup in 2017, followed by the fiercely contested 2018 and 2023 elections and ensuing governance crises, crystallised an unassailable reality: the 1987 fusion of powers, engineered for a one party one-man rule state, had become a dangerous anomaly in a multiparty environment, perpetuating an obsessive focus on a single office and trapping the nation in perpetual electoral contestation that undermines peace, development, unity, stability and national security. The consequences have been catastrophic. Since 2000, the mismatch between the 1987 Executive Presidency and a multi-party democratic political system has erected five toxic barriers to progress: a short five-year electoral cycle that consigns governance to perpetual electioneering, privileging populism and political survival over effective service delivery, while igniting disputed polls, policy paralysis, rampant corruption, inefficiency, and deepening polarisation. Muchena’s Referendum Call a Constitutional Fraud Retired Air Marshal Henry Muchena’s 12 March 2026 letter compounds his falsehoods about universal adult suffrage by brazenly demanding that the Constitution (Amendment No. 3) Bill be subjected to a national referendum. He declares that if the amendments are in the national interest, they must be put to the people—yet he cites no constitutional provision or law to support his claim. Instead, he cynically invokes the year 2000, falsely claiming Zanu-PF “championed” a referendum. The decision to hold that referendum on the 2000 Draft Constitution was taken independently by the Constitutional Commission, not by Zanu-PF. Such mendacity is not revolutionary discourse; it is naked conflict-mongering calculated to sow discord and undermine national stability. The constitutional position is unequivocal. Section 328(6) reserves the ultimate democratic veto—the national referendum—solely for the most sacred provisions: amendments to Chapter 4 (Declaration of Rights), Chapter 16 (Agricultural Land), or section 328 itself. Section 328(9) extends this protection to the clause. Only in these exceptional cases must a Bill, even after securing a two-thirds parliamentary majority, be submitted to the people within three months and approved by a majority of participating voters. All other provisions—including all those in the Amendment No. 3 Bill, 2026—require nothing more than a two-thirds majority in Parliament. No referendum is required or permitted. Any demand to extend the limit beyond this scope is illegal, unconstitutional, and amounts to conflict mongering disguised as democratic zeal. Section 117(2)(a) of the Constitution expressly empowers the Tenth Parliament to amend the Constitution in accordance with section 328(5). This Parliament is sovereign and not bound by its predecessors. As the United States Supreme Court held in Fletcher v. Peck (1810), one legislature cannot abridge the powers of a succeeding legislature. The Tenth Parliament therefore possesses full constitutional legitimacy to enact the Amendment No. 3 Bill without a referendum. Muchena’s referendum call is not only baseless but is also dangerous psychodrama. Conclusion The Constitution (Amendment No. 3) Bill of 2026 delivers a bold antidote to Zimbabwe's enduring constitutional malaise dating back to 1987. By shifting presidential selection to Parliament, lengthening the electoral cycle from five to seven years, and embedding electoral safeguards, the Bill dismantles the falsehood that the directly elected Executive Presidency is a legacy of the liberation struggle—when in fact it was specifically crafted in 1987 to entrench a legislated one party one-man rule state—and when it has crippled the nation since the Mach 1990 general election. Muchena and his veiled allies are outrageously mistaken in claiming the Bill strips anyone’s voting rights; the claim is not an argument or debate it is a blatant lie. Far from diminishing suffrage, the Bill expands it profoundly. As the Minister of Justice, Legal and Parliamentary Affairs Hon Ziyambi Ziyambi has announced, a pivotal outcome of the Bill will be granting Zimbabweans in the Diaspora their long-denied right to vote, under the Electoral Act—finally fulfilling universal adult suffrage for all. Equally erroneous is their call for a referendum on the Bill. Under section 328, a referendum is not a political weapon but a strictly legal tool reserved only for any amendment to Chapters 4, 16 and section 328; and no other part of the Constitution. Weaponizing the referendum is reckless conflict-mongering that imperils national harmony. Far from regression or disenfranchisement, the Bill forges a visionary recalibration: fostering stability, continuity, cohesion, and socioeconomic advancement. It redeems the Constitution from the 1987 imperial presidency's grip meant for a legislated one party one-man rule state, fulfilling history's urgent call since the Unity Accord. President Mnangagwa and his Cabinet deserve commendation for coming up with the ground-breaking Bill. Its reforms, including taming the 1987 executive behemoth, are progressive and unprecedented. In championing the Bill, which truly offers something for everyone, they herald a transformative era, bridging Zimbabwe's turbulent history with a prosperous horizon beyond self-interest and beyond 2030. Significantly, the Bill reforms the electoral system, not individuals who can only be reformed by God!

@ProfJNMoyo A constitution is a living document subject to change! But I think you and those in the leadership need to reflect about the extent these changes bring. Let’s assume the constitution does not cover these changes but their import is so fundamental a referendum cant be avoided!

@WZimuto @ShumbaTapiwa @molokele @nelsonchamisa What you disagreeing with Cde brother?

@MMlilo1 @ShumbaTapiwa @molokele @nelsonchamisa I disagree cde Mfundo, because Biti, Tshabangu et al is the reason we are in this mess. They dismantled the parliamentary opposition foothold in parliament Without a majority in parly, ED wouldn’t to rail road this bill via parly, ignoring the masses as the constitution dictates

I am one of the seasoned academics fully behind the leadership of President @nelsonchamisa. I have clarity in understanding that in this first half of the year 2026, we are mobilizing and building institutions for our movement as outlined in Agenda 2026. This will give us capacity to achieve our objectives. My view is that the struggle we have does not start and end with Constitutional amendments. i.e winning the battle against amendments alone will be a small temporary victory that will not help the people of Zimbabwe. Constitutional amendments are a symptom of the deeper crisis we have always had. A conversation about amendments that does not seek to address the real issues is not worth my sweat. In President Nelson Chamisa we have a leader with the capacity and following to take over government and govern the country for everyone. We qre guided by this serious and bold ambition. We cannot be reduced to the narrow ambitions of pressure groups. We were here before this Bill. We will be here after defeating it when others disappear. The Bill is a footnote in our Agenda to defeat and replace oppression. We were not formed for the Bill. We have a history and a future. We should deal with the Bill in this context.

@DivhaMoyo @RitikShilp80441 @ShumbaTapiwa @molokele @nelsonchamisa Hawu is this not what we have been saying all along??

@MMlilo1 @RitikShilp80441 @ShumbaTapiwa @molokele @nelsonchamisa Saka tichaita sei? We stop falling for the false choice trap( pple can walk and chew gum at the same time) We deal with the Bill as part of the bigger picture while we are also build. Fight the Bill to save the pitch and build with like-minded people to win the game.

@DAZintelligence @Dr_JAMavedzenge It’s crass communication to credential such a message in such a manner! It is unintelligent! What’s the import - because I am a “seasoned academic” therefore what?

@Dr_JAMavedzenge @MMlilo1 Your problem Mfundo is you're discrediting him because anyorerei his credentials yet you and the likes of Hopewell dismiss others opinions here saying they're not educated they don't read. So munoda zvipi? Only your opinions are superior? Yet they remain untested on the ground

What makes epistle this even more flawed is that you preface the argument with your credentials! The message is very obvious: “WE” have nothing to do with the constitutional amendments debate because we are preparing to takeover gov! Miswai

@DivhaMoyo @RitikShilp80441 @ShumbaTapiwa @molokele @nelsonchamisa Saka muchaita sei?

@MMlilo1 @RitikShilp80441 @ShumbaTapiwa @molokele @nelsonchamisa Rangu or renyu it doesn’t matter if we are playing on a pitch ZANU built with ZANU judges, with ZANU rules. Whether it is Agenda 2026/ CDF the strategy of simply reacting to ZPF's legal traps is a recipe for a long stay in the wilderness. They will bring amendment 4 next time.

@DivhaMoyo @RitikShilp80441 @ShumbaTapiwa @molokele @nelsonchamisa Sounds good but neteam renyu iri forget my brother! We have to stop ZANUPF at every front rather than wait until it’s late!

@RitikShilp80441 @MMlilo1 @ShumbaTapiwa @molokele @nelsonchamisa We can't let ZANU keep pushing hotfixes to a corrupted OS. We need a clean install not more patches that they will just bypass . We need to stop debugging their mess and start building the new architecture 🇿🇼.

@DivhaMoyo @ShumbaTapiwa @molokele @nelsonchamisa On the face of it sounds great to think of ZANUPF as the bigger problem than fighting amendments but we know only better that this team is not up to task. Vanhu vanotorerwa party naChabangu claim they can ignore this bill and deal with ZANU? Kupi miswai imi

@MMlilo1 @ShumbaTapiwa @molokele @nelsonchamisa Patching a few holes won’t save a ship whose engine has been stolen. Fight the amendment but also build institutional capacity to remove Zanu. Without that we are just arguing with the regine not removing it. The amendment is part of the puzzle but should not be the only piece.

@DAZintelligence @Dr_JAMavedzenge I understand the challenges but it will be worse after the amendments! Thats why a united front of all opposition is critical

@Dr_JAMavedzenge @MMlilo1 But realistically speaking bro , is there anything that anyone without control of MPs can do about this bill because as we know it ED and ZANU determined to avoid the referendum and the captured courts will simply rule in his favour? Even CDF, NCA, DCP all of them vanoitei?

@tapiwa_chiriga You can summarize everything written there by #NOto2050!

@MMlilo1 It's because they have been allowed to be like this by a support base that gives them a free pass. Especially these cdes who stay in the shadows while making these decisions

@tapiwa_chiriga @Dr_JAMavedzenge If a presidential technical advisor does not have the emotional intelligence of understanding that it is terrible communication to start by credentialing your message like this then President Chamisa is in trouble!

@Dr_JAMavedzenge @MMlilo1 Hey hey although apo 😂😂😭😂