Outsider

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.

This is as brazen an attack on the President as one can ever give and coming from his own Deputy its shocking. For one so close to the President to resort to this is diplomatically gross and strategically poor. The VP is now seriously endangering his standing by pandering to the whims of social media and the opposition by indulging in content creation. The subject matter which he poorly dresses in Biblical frocks instead of explicitly stating his opposition to CAB3, as any serious politician would do, shows his level of frustration. Politically the man has been outmanoeuvred and if he is sincere that he opposes what ZANU PF has come to represent then he should resign like any self-respecting leader. What he is contesting is a party decision and he can't continue within an entity whose thinking and direction he doesn't accept! Resigning, not metaphors, is the only redemptive path for him. He should resign and then canvass for the support of the opposition, which he is clearly pandering to, against his own party. CAB3 is not the product of any single individual but is a ZANU PF project, a party to which he belongs. He cannot reduce it to any single Hezekiah when he has been part of Cabinet that approved it. He failed to block the resolution from the Conference, Politburo, Central Committee, Cabinet, Public Hearings and we are now reaching the Parliament stage. For the ruling party he has become the main opposition, providing fodder for continued tension and instability through such veiled attacks. The biggest takeaway from all this is that he lacks the necessary political muscle and internal support for anything of significance. Thats a hard truth which the doomsday prophets should quickly recognise and stop putting pressure on him to become some action hero. Party members have accepted the party decisions and moved on. Only social media and the motley crowd of illusionists hanging in shadows amount to the "army" that are beckoning him into what will surely amount to self-immolation. Fuelled by this "virtual army" he has instigated multiple political infractions goading President Mnangagwa who has himself remained dignified and quiet. ED's patience and Long-Game tactics are clearly unsettling him. It's just that the political standards for the opposition, which has embraced him on social media, is very low such that they can't recognise the absurdity of the VP remaining part of the machinery which they deride and yet embrace him as a shining light. For the ruling party he is becoming a liability publicly questioning party resolutions and feeding the public mentality with treasonous thoughts.

For a grown man to argue that he accepts that there is a two term limit in the Zimbabwean constitution but he pretends like he doesn’t know that the limit to the length of the term itself is limited to five years, is illogical. How can people know when the two terms are up if no one knows how many years are in term? How did the current President serve a first term if there was no limit to the numbers years in the first term? And why is his second term not bound by the years of the first term? Why is the ZANU PF Bill seeking to legally extend a term from five years in the constitution to seven years if five years is not a term limit? This argument that Professor Moyo keeps failing to is part of why CAB3 is being rejected because people realize that Moyo is trying to use propaganda to create a legal fiction to rape the constitution.

Debunking a Persistent and Dangerous Myth: Zimbabwe’s Constitution Contains Only One Presidential Term Limit Provision: In the intense public debate over the Constitution of Zimbabwe (Amendment No. 3) Bill, an utterly false claim is being repeated relentlessly and without a single shred of evidence: that the Constitution contains two separate presidential term limit provisions—sections 91(2) and 95(2)(b). This assertion is not merely incorrect; it is constitutionally impossible. No constitution anywhere in the world has ever created two distinct term limit provisions for the presidency. Section 95(2)(b) is not—and, according to the Constitution’s own crystal-clear definition in section 328(1), read with section 328(7), cannot possibly be—a term limit provision. A genuine presidential term limit provision restricts the total or maximum length of time any individual may hold or occupy the Office of President. Section 95(2)(b) does nothing of the sort. It simply defines the length of each presidential term as five years, running coterminous with the life of Parliament. In straightforward language, section 95(2)(b) regulates the office itself, not the person who holds it, and says absolutely nothing about how many terms or the length of time any one individual may serve. The Constitution of Zimbabwe (2013) contains only one term limit provision: Section 91(2). This clause is unequivocal and ironclad. It prohibits any person from serving more than two terms as President, with the vital safeguard that three or more years in office counts as a full term. It is only this single provision—and this provision alone—that actually limits the total time any individual can occupy the highest office in the land. Nothing illuminates this fundamental distinction more powerfully than comparative constitutional analysis—the gold standard for both public education and responsible policymaking. As the ancient wisdom has it, there is truly nothing new under the sun. A careful examination of proven global practice, vividly illustrated in the attached infographics, reveals three clear and time-tested approaches that nations around the world have taken when designing presidential term rules: Case 1 – Term length only (unlimited re-election permitted) Constitutions in this category have a single provision that simply defines the length of each presidential term, leaving the number of terms entirely open. This constitutional model operated successfully for decades—for example—in Botswana (31 years, 1966–1997), the United States (163 years, 1789–1951), and Zimbabwe itself (23 years, 1987–2013). Case 2 – Two separate provisions Here constitutions have two separate provisions: one that sets the length of each presidential term; and a second, entirely distinct clause that limits the total time any person may serve as President. This is precisely the framework that has—for example—operated in Botswana since 1997, South Africa since 1996, the United States since 1951, and Zimbabwe since 2013. The first infographic displays this clear separation of the two provisions across all the four countries. Case 3 – Combined in one elegant clause Constitutions in this category have a single constitutional provision that seamlessly merges both term limit concepts—defining term length while simultaneously imposing the limit. This approach has—for example— stood the test of time in Argentina (since 1994), Chile (since 1980), France (since 1958), Mexico (since 1917), the Philippines (since 1987), and South Korea (since 1987), as shown in the second infographic. The historical record is especially telling. Botswana introduced its separate term limit provision only after 31 years of independence, the United States after 163 years, and Zimbabwe after more than two decades of operating under a pure term-length provision. South Africa, by contrast, enshrined both provisions, separately, from the very first day of its democratic Constitution in 1996. These facts drive home an irrefutable truth: a provision that merely defines the length of a term has never been—and can never be—a term limit provision. The distinction is not a technicality; it is the bedrock of constitutional integrity. Recognising it clearly ensures that public discourse and debate on constitutional amendments is anchored in facts, logic, and proven international best practice, rather than convenient fiction to advance nefarious political agendas. Zimbabwe and Zimbabweans deserve nothing less!