Tariro Mandizvidza

413 posts

Tariro Mandizvidza

Tariro Mandizvidza

@TariMandie

Fashion, Lifestyle

Budiriro South Katılım Nisan 2026
263 Takip Edilen129 Takipçiler
Tariro Mandizvidza
Tariro Mandizvidza@TariMandie·
@peterndoro So all 242 legislators who voted for #CA3 all somehow misread the Constitution, and only you got it right? All those years holed up in South Africa seem to have left you badly detached from both the law and reality. Arrogance is not constitutional expertise Pita.
English
0
0
0
35
Peter Ndoro
Peter Ndoro@peterndoro·
Please read the constitution. Parliament cannot simply pass a bill to override the Constitution. Some provisions are so important that they are protected and require a national referendum before they can be changed. Please read better.
Mukaranga Akarangwa@km_muty

@peterndoro @ZANUPF_Official Stop tweeting like a heckler or a stone thrower or those March March hoodlums! What’s the core mandate of an MP of note making laws ? How does one’s mandate become law breaking? Do better

English
23
10
24
2.1K
Tariro Mandizvidza
Tariro Mandizvidza@TariMandie·
In analysing #CA3, the question is not limited to Section 91 alone. Section 95 (term length) and Section 328 (the definition and consequences of amending a term-limit provision) are equally relevant.
Tariro Mandizvidza tweet media
English
0
0
0
17
Christine Charumbira
Christine Charumbira@chrissy10charu·
Yesterday in Mudzi, Hon Minister Tatenda Mavetera joined comrades to celebrate the CAB 3 victory. We marked the moment Parliament passed the Bill with an overwhelming 84% of votes, a clear sign that the people’s voice is winning. From slogan to law, the CAB 3 journey continues. Aluta Continua 🇿🇼 Congratulations Zimbabwe. 2030 VaMnangagwa vanenge vachingotonga ✊️ @TateMavetera @youngwomen4ed1 @zanupf_patriots @ZANUPF_Official
English
6
7
21
1.1K
Tariro Mandizvidza retweetledi
Cde Progressive
Cde Progressive@CdeProgressive·
@BarbaraRwodzi @TateMavetera @HonJMuswereJnr, Sheila Chikomo Angeline ​Gata Congratulations on staying quiet when it mattered most. At the very moment #CA3 needed all hands on deck, you just didn’t show up. That silence? It’s as good as an emphatic No! making it clear you’re stepping away from your own leader, President ED Mnangagwa, and the 2030 agenda. People remember those who stand in the way of progress, they also remember those who vanish when it’s time to act. Your absence said everything. #ED2030 #Vision2030 #ParliamentZW #Accountability
English
0
3
2
32
Tariro Mandizvidza
Tariro Mandizvidza@TariMandie·
Snippets from Hon. Ziyambi's speech at 2nd Reading of CA3 in Parliament. #CA3
Tariro Mandizvidza tweet mediaTariro Mandizvidza tweet mediaTariro Mandizvidza tweet media
English
0
0
0
14
Tariro Mandizvidza retweetledi
TheNewsHawks
TheNewsHawks@NewsHawksLive·
Billboards Bring Zimbabwe’s Constitution Back To The Streets BY Nomuzikayise Ngwenya and Karabo Ngoepe A modest billboard has done something the political class has not managed in months: it has put the constitutional text back in front of public discourse. Drive through Kuwadzana Roundabout in Harare this week and a billboard meets you, plain and unadorned, with a question and an answer. The question is whether you know that term length is not the same as term limit. The answer is in the small print, two section citations beneath the headline: section 95(2)(b) and section 91(2) of the Constitution. It is a modest piece of out-of-home advertising. It is also one of the more interesting interventions in our public life in recent months, and it is worth pausing on why. For the better part of a year, the conversation about the Constitution of Zimbabwe (Amendment No.3) H.B.1. Bill, 2026 has been conducted almost entirely in slogans. Supporters and detractors alike have reached for the easy phrase, the political shorthand, the conclusion without the working. What has been missing is the text. Not the text in summary, but the text itself: the actual words of the Constitution, the section numbers, the provisions in their precise wording. The billboard at Kuwadzana asks the passing motorist to do something unusual. It asks them to read. Two provisions sit at the heart of the question the billboards raise. Section 95(2)(b) governs how long a single term of office of the President, as an institution, lasts. Section 91(2) governs how many terms a President may serve, and the minimum length of each term. The two work together, but they do different things. One sets the duration of the electoral cycle. The other caps or limits the number of the cycles. A change to the first is not, by definition, a change to the second, and vice versa. That distinction is not a clever lawyerly trick or semantic sophistry. It is the architecture the Constitution itself has put in place, and the Constitutional Court has read provisions of this kind in precisely those terms. In Mupungu v Minister of Justice, Legal and Parliamentary Affairs and Ors CCZ 7/21, the Court approached the textual relationship between provisions like these with a discipline that supports the reading the billboards make visible. A term length provision and a term limit provision are not interchangeable. They are different drafting tools, doing different constitutional work. That is the affirmative case. What the billboards do, with admirable economy, is put that affirmative case in front of the public so that the public can read it for themselves. The reaction has been instructive. The conversation on the streets On one side of the response, ordinary commuters and online observers have begun, perhaps for the first time in this debate, to refer to sections by number. Posts have appeared on social media in which passing motorists describe the billboard, name the sections, and conclude that the constitutional argument has finally come to the streets. A working lawyer's thread, widely shared, walked through the distinction without prompting and without ambiguity. Term length is one thing, the thread observed; term limit is another; the two-term cap stays where it is. The billboards have surfaced, rather than supplied, the legal answer. A parliamentary contribution from one of the Bill's supporters captured the same point in a different register, suggesting that the legacy of the liberation struggle was secured by universal franchise, not by any specific term structure. That argument is for the parliamentary record, and the speaker can carry it. The narrower point to make is that the billboards themselves do not enter the sovereignty debate at all. They draw a distinction. The distinction is between two provisions in the same Constitution. That is all.
TheNewsHawks tweet media
English
3
41
37
1.2K
Tariro Mandizvidza retweetledi
TheNewsHawks
TheNewsHawks@NewsHawksLive·
Billboards Bring Zimbabwe’s Constitution Back To The Streets BY Nomuzikayise Ngwenya and Karabo Ngoepe A modest billboard has done something the political class has not managed in months: it has put the constitutional text back in front of public discourse. Drive through Kuwadzana Roundabout in Harare this week and a billboard meets you, plain and unadorned, with a question and an answer. The question is whether you know that term length is not the same as term limit. The answer is in the small print, two section citations beneath the headline: section 95(2)(b) and section 91(2) of the Constitution. It is a modest piece of out-of-home advertising. It is also one of the more interesting interventions in our public life in recent months, and it is worth pausing on why. For the better part of a year, the conversation about the Constitution of Zimbabwe (Amendment No.3) H.B.1. Bill, 2026 has been conducted almost entirely in slogans. Supporters and detractors alike have reached for the easy phrase, the political shorthand, the conclusion without the working. What has been missing is the text. Not the text in summary, but the text itself: the actual words of the Constitution, the section numbers, the provisions in their precise wording. The billboard at Kuwadzana asks the passing motorist to do something unusual. It asks them to read. Two provisions sit at the heart of the question the billboards raise. Section 95(2)(b) governs how long a single term of office of the President, as an institution, lasts. Section 91(2) governs how many terms a President may serve, and the minimum length of each term. The two work together, but they do different things. One sets the duration of the electoral cycle. The other caps or limits the number of the cycles. A change to the first is not, by definition, a change to the second, and vice versa. That distinction is not a clever lawyerly trick or semantic sophistry. It is the architecture the Constitution itself has put in place, and the Constitutional Court has read provisions of this kind in precisely those terms. In Mupungu v Minister of Justice, Legal and Parliamentary Affairs and Ors CCZ 7/21, the Court approached the textual relationship between provisions like these with a discipline that supports the reading the billboards make visible. A term length provision and a term limit provision are not interchangeable. They are different drafting tools, doing different constitutional work. That is the affirmative case. What the billboards do, with admirable economy, is put that affirmative case in front of the public so that the public can read it for themselves. The reaction has been instructive. The conversation on the streets On one side of the response, ordinary commuters and online observers have begun, perhaps for the first time in this debate, to refer to sections by number. Posts have appeared on social media in which passing motorists describe the billboard, name the sections, and conclude that the constitutional argument has finally come to the streets. A working lawyer's thread, widely shared, walked through the distinction without prompting and without ambiguity. Term length is one thing, the thread observed; term limit is another; the two-term cap stays where it is. The billboards have surfaced, rather than supplied, the legal answer. A parliamentary contribution from one of the Bill's supporters captured the same point in a different register, suggesting that the legacy of the liberation struggle was secured by universal franchise, not by any specific term structure. That argument is for the parliamentary record, and the speaker can carry it. The narrower point to make is that the billboards themselves do not enter the sovereignty debate at all. They draw a distinction. The distinction is between two provisions in the same Constitution. That is all.
TheNewsHawks tweet mediaTheNewsHawks tweet media
English
24
80
64
7K
CITE
CITE@citezw·
The Constitutional Amendment Bill No. 3 has passed through the National Assembly, but the process is not over yet. The Bill now moves to the Senate for the next stage. Comrade CA3 breaks down what happened in Parliament and what comes next.
English
12
67
46
1.2K
Tariro Mandizvidza
Tariro Mandizvidza@TariMandie·
Ndozvisere musoro. Where were you on the one day your participation would actually have mattered? Kudarikwa nevanhu veku opposition munhu rudzii? @TateMavetera
English
0
3
2
290
Tariro Mandizvidza retweetledi
Bete 𝕏 
Bete 𝕏 @Bete263·
@RexMidzi posts a flyer that carries a slip: a heading that reads "what the Bill does" above a list of what it does not. Exactly what a careful lawyer should catch. He did not, hunting instead for a fault that was not there, in Latin: "argumentum ad ignorantiam pretending to be civic education." The label is misapplied: argument from ignorance asserts what has not been disproven, while denials answering real claims are the opposite. He led with Latin to look learned and spent the rest missing what the Bill plainly does. The performance was the tell. Midzi sets the test: do the amendments "strengthen or weaken democratic safeguards"? Let us out it against the only binding document that answers him clearly, Hon. Minister Ziyambi's Second Reading speech, Hansard of 3 June 2026. Midzi: "The issue is not how long a President remains in office, but how much power is accumulated in the office itself." Hon. Ziyambi: "Extending the term changes only the length of each contract... The limit remains two." The Bill adds no term and no power. A President "must continuously hold the confidence of Parliament," which he calls "accountability made permanent, not periodic." That is a check, not a concentration. Midzi: "You are taking that right away... a clear diminution of participation." Hon. Ziyambi: the right to vote is "untouched"; only its route reforms. "The people elect Parliament. Parliament, in turn, elects the President... Executive authority continues to derive from the people," the principle of Section 88. On the 2023 roll, four provinces held 3 540 000 of 6 600 000 voters, over half, enough to "decide the Presidency by themselves through sheer numerical weight" while the other six are ignored. Election through Parliament "draws every province, every region and every voice into the choice." Direct election fails the test of protecting minorities from majoritarian capture; the reform passes. Midzi: "...arrangements that make it easier for those in power to retain and exercise control." Hon. Ziyambi: the design "fosters and rewards consensus, coalition building." Put his question to the Bill and it does the reverse, twice: the two-term limit stays untouched, and the President must hold Parliament's confidence continuously, not face voters once in years. By design it disperses power, not entrenches it. Midzi: "Key electoral functions are transferred to offices controlled by presidential appointees... the effect of a measure is more important than the language used to defend it." Hon. Ziyambi: "the conduct of the election remains wholly and securely with" the Commission. The functions are separated, not concentrated: the Registrar-General keeps the civil record, a Delimitation Commission draws boundaries. Take him at his word that effect matters; test the largest transfer by origin: voter registration with the Registrar-General "did not originate with this government. It first came from the opposition benches... on 18 May 2023," moved by Hon. Charlton Hwende and backed by Hon. Tendai Biti and Hon. Alan Markham. The capture he names is a reform the opposition proposed. Midzi: "If responsibilities previously entrusted to the ZEC are transferred... the administration of elections is undeniably affected." Hon. Ziyambi: the Commission retains "the conduct and supervision of every election and referendum," relieved only of record-keeping and boundary-drawing, and so "has not been weakened." Measured by function rather than name, his own standard, the case comes out the other way. Midziz is simply in disagreement with the Bill, not revealing anything hidden in it. The Hansard of 3 June is public, read it next time you want to take on a simple flyer. #CA3
English
26
95
76
829
Doug Coltart ✊🏼🇿🇼
The fight against #CAB3 is FAR from over. From here, it must go to the Senate. If passed by a 2/3rds majority in the Senate, it must then go for a referendum within 3 months (youtube.com/watch?v=0Lofda…). Of course, they are trying to avoid that, but the law is clear. So if they refuse, there will be certainly be litigation, political action, and prophetic witness. If the President signs it into law prior to it going for a referendum, that will be a profound breach of his constitutional obligations which will require an appropriate response from all Zimbabweans believe in justice and constitutionalism. There will be further litigation, political action, and prophetic witness to challenge the process. #CAB3 could be reversed at any one of those junctions. And then, even if after all of that CAB3 still stands, that is certainly not the end! In fact, if that happens, the fight to defend the Constitution and our nation from capture by the oligarch class (zvigananda) will only just be beginning! The energy that this CAB3 process has injected into our body politic, organising experience that we have all gained, and the winnowing of those who truly stand with the people and those who were always in it for themselves is all going to be crucial for the struggle ahead. Don't be disheartened or dismayed. A luta continua!
YouTube video
YouTube
English
21
91
256
20.4K
Tariro Mandizvidza
Tariro Mandizvidza@TariMandie·
It’s kind of ironic, you created this mess yourself. All that strategic vagueness, letting people in your camp pull in different directions, and now everyone’s confused. That’s on you Nelson. And honestly, you can’t talk about democracy and then attack people who chose another path. Real democrats know how to handle disagreement, they don’t turn around and call anyone a traitor just because things didn’t go their way. #CA3
English
0
0
2
595
nelson chamisa
nelson chamisa@nelsonchamisa·
A SHAMEFUL BETRAYAL.. We do not merely bear the scars of politics; we carry deep wounds. We have been severely bruised, abused, and broken by this oppressive system of tyranny. Many of our friends and relatives lost their lives because of politics, and the pain remains as profound today as it was then. Some have been abducted and disappeared without a trace. Others have been forced to sleep in unimaginable places, including the mountains, simply to survive. We, along with many others, have been arrested, persecuted, and subjected to relentless harassment. We have been left for dead after numerous assassination attempts. We have been denied opportunities, marginalized, and deprived of the resources and means necessary to improve our lives. Food and government support or opportunities have been politicized and weaponized. We have been excluded, humiliated, robbed, and exploited continuously…day after day, season after season. And after all this, some choose to align themselves with and support the very oppressors and persecutors responsible for our suffering, all for money, personal benefits, and the desire to illegally remain in this illegitimate parliament. The citizens are the ‘ultimate parliament’ and shall determine the direction of our great country. To you, Oppressors and your sidekicks …Stop it or be stopped. Change can’t be delayed or denied any longer! #TheNew #TheCitizensMovement #Godisinit
English
237
280
1K
57K
Tariro Mandizvidza
Tariro Mandizvidza@TariMandie·
How democracy worked yesterday: MPs debated, voted, and the majority carried the day. Those who opposed #CA3 knew it commanded overwhelming support, yet opted for symbolic resistance rather than meaningful engagement. Now that the Bill has prevailed and is heading to the Senate, its provisions will apply to everyone equally, and any benefits arising from it will be enjoyed by all, including those who voted against it. Parliament has spoken, the democratic process has taken its course. Congratulations #CA3Zvaendwa
Tariro Mandizvidza tweet media
English
0
0
0
40
Tariro Mandizvidza
Tariro Mandizvidza@TariMandie·
Thank you Sen. Tshabangu for standing up for the MPs who are are being bullying after #CA3's historic parliamentary victory, simply for exercising their democratic right and choosing progress and putting the national interests first. #CA3
Senator Sengezo Tshabangu@SengezoTsh17075

Good Morning, Fellow Zimbabweans, I trust that I find you well today. I wish to address two important matters of national interest concerning the Constitution of Zimbabwe Amendment Bill No. 3, which is currently undergoing the legislative process in the 10th Parliament of Zimbabwe. Firstly, I would like to update all interested stakeholders on the current status of the Bill. I'm pleased to formally announce, in my capacity as the Leader of Opposition Business in the 10th Parliament, that the Constitution of Zimbabwe Amendment Bill No. 3 successfully passed through the National Assembly yesterday with the required two-thirds majority following a peaceful, transparent, and democratic voting process. I would like to commend all MPs for conducting themselves in a mature, professional, and responsible manner throughout the debate and voting proceedings. Their conduct demonstrated the strength of our democratic institutions and reinforced Zimbabwe's commitment to constitutionalism and parliamentary democracy. Such orderly proceedings are a testament to the competence and effectiveness of our Parliament, which I believe ranks among the most capable legislative bodies in Sub-Saharan Africa. I also extend my appreciation to the Speaker of Parliament for his leadership in ensuring that the process was conducted in accordance with parliamentary procedures and established democratic principles. Following the successful passage of the Bill in the National Assembly, Parliament adjourned yesterday and will resume next Tuesday. On that day, the Minister of Justice Hon Ziyambi, will introduce the Bill in the Senate through its First Reading. This stage will mark the formal introduction of the Bill into the Senate, where it will begin a legislative process similar to the one recently completed in the National Assembly. As always, I will continue to provide updates on every stage of the Bill's progress in the Senate to ensure that the public remains informed. Secondly, I wish to address allegations currently circulating on various social media platforms concerning opposition MPs of who voted in support of the Bill during yesterday's proceedings. It is important for all Zimbabweans to remember that ours is a democratic nation governed by a Constitution that guarantees fundamental rights and freedoms, including the freedom of conscience, and participation in democratic processes. Every elected representative is entitled to exercise their judgment when voting on matters before Parliament, guided by personal conviction, the interests of constituents, and their interpretation of what best serves the nation. Therefore, opposition MPs who voted in favour of the Bill exercised a constitutional right afforded to them as elected representatives of the people. Allegations that they were coerced, intimidated, or improperly influenced by ZANU-PF to support the Bill remain unsubstantiated and, at present, amount to mere speculation. Such claims should be supported by credible evidence before they are accepted as fact. I therefore unequivocally reject these accusations as false, malicious, and potentially damaging to the democratic principles that underpin our constitutional order. Attempts to delegitimise the decisions of elected representatives without evidence risk undermining the rights and freedoms guaranteed under Chapter 4 of the Constitution of Zimbabwe, particularly those contained within the Declaration of Rights. As citizens, we may hold differing political opinions, but we must always respect democratic processes, the rule of law, and the constitutional rights of others, even when we disagree with the outcomes. I thank you, fellow Zimbabweans, for your continued interest in parliamentary affairs. I remain committed to keeping the nation informed as the legislative process progresses, and I will continue to provide updates on any significant developments regarding this Bill. I wish you all a peaceful and enjoyable weekend. Thank you.

English
0
1
0
63
Tariro Mandizvidza retweetledi
Cde Progressive
Cde Progressive@CdeProgressive·
Hon. Ziyambi Ziyambi has welcomed the historic passage of #CA3, saying the Bill benefited from wide consultations and inclusive amendments on gender and children's rights. He said cross-party support reflected democratic maturity and strengthened governance. The Bill now heads to the Senate for further debate. #CA3 #Zimbabwe #ParliamentZW #ConstitutionalReform #Governance #Democracy #WomenEmpowerment #ChildRights #ZimbabwePolitics #Vision2030
English
1
1
1
167
🇿🇼 ZANU PF PATRIOTS 🇿🇼
He voted yes‼️ Hon Discent Collins Bajila, CCC MP for the Emakhandeni Luveve constituency voted yes for CAB 3
🇿🇼 ZANU PF PATRIOTS 🇿🇼 tweet media
English
48
17
43
12.6K
Tariro Mandizvidza retweetledi
Cde Progressive
Cde Progressive@CdeProgressive·
Being in the opposition does not mean you have to oppose everything. These 35 opposition MPs understood that truth, and chose country over slogans & conscience and principle over conformity. When it mattered most, these men and women rose above the noise of blanket opposition and cast their votes for a better Zimbabwe. They recognised that CA3 is a landmark step in Zimbabwe's constitutional evolution, that builds on the foundation of the 2013 Constitution to deliver a more stable and resilient system of national leadership. These MPs read the bill, weighed its merits, and voted Yes, not for ZANU-PF, not against the CCC, but for Zimbabwe. History does not remember those who opposed for opposition's sake. It remembers those with the courage to stand apart and be found on the right side of progress. Zimbabwe sees you!!!Zimbabwe salutes you!!! Zimbabwe celebrates you!!! #CA3 #Zimbabweparliament @enkudheni
Cde Progressive tweet media
English
0
2
2
52
Tariro Mandizvidza retweetledi
Parliament of Zimbabwe
Parliament of Zimbabwe@ParliamentZim·
'Ayes' 216 'Noes' 42 216 MPs having voted in favour, number of affirmative votes in support of CAB3 , breaches the 187 mark which was needed to garner the 2/3 majority. Therefore the Hon Speaker has announced that CAB3 has been passed by the National Assembly. Bill now awaits transmission to the Senate
English
65
62
101
36.7K