Chirasha

@CrimeWatchZW @DavidColtart Vanhu vasaita mafunnies so mhani. Why not make a statue that truly resembles the person. Cartooning heroes like this is in bad taste

A new statue of liberation hero Joshua Nkomo has been installed in Maphisa, Matabeleland South, ahead of tomorrow’s Zimbabwe Independence Day celebrations, as Zimbabwe marks 46 years of independence. The main national celebrations will be held there. I wonder how much it cost to build this statue.

@ZimDaily Trump poorly defines war and views wars as transactional. His definition of "war" in these cases, noting that many of these involved unresolved, long-term geopolitical disputes rather than declared wars that were completely terminated, only emphasizes his poor world view

@ZimDaily None actually

If we add Lebanon, how many wars has Trump stopped since he came back to office?

@MbiziRangaZK @LNkomo54428 Reputation? Notoriety, infamy?

@bamboahugh @LNkomo54428 Maprinciples hama...we live in societies and we know how bad it is to be imposed...I have a reputation to protect...I cant be imposed on a process I did not participate i should have joined the candidate selection from the very start

Did Chamisa handpicked you?

@BohuslavskaKate When you look at Vance, what do you see?

Vance says that stopping funding for Ukraine is one of his proudest achievements in this administration. ​I’m watching this stunningly cruel speech from Ukraine, as Russia continues to kills us every day. Just today, they killed 8-year-old boy in Cherkasy and five people in Dnipro. Dozens more were injured. ​The military assistance you are so proud of stopping was used to save lives in a war Russia started and continues every day by choice, in a war that only became possible after USA pressured Ukraine into disarming... ​I do not know if Vance can fully comprehend the scale of the tragedy unfolding here: a brutal, illegal war of extermination by Russia, and the slow abandonment by our allies. There is nothing to be proud of. Absolutely nothing.

@MbiziRangaZK @LNkomo54428 Either you were not competent or did not have the confidence to lead. Both would make you a bad one at it not to mention the poor content creation

@LNkomo54428 Yes chamisa was picking those he thought would perform better though this has too many challenges as we are all seeing...a number of candidates were chosen like that...I remember being foned kuti hanzi president varikuda a competent someone to stand as a mayor ndakati bodo

@ZimDaily @PatsonKanengoni Trump kamurwere ako

Trump is removing every dictator…famba Trump…

@MthuliNcube01 Bvaapo

As the ZANU PF Deputy Treasurer General (Politburo) and Central Committee member from Bulawayo Province, I wish to express my deepest gratitude to the wonderful people of Bulawayo for coming out in their numbers to support Constitutional Amendment Bill No. 3.

@Bete263 @ZimThirdEye @kasiryTawaz @NtateRanaka @black_jew1 @Laque_davis Bete romene

Let's talk about the clowns who are getting Zimbabwe's Constitution of Zimbabwe (Amendment No. 3) Bill completely, embarrassingly wrong. 🤡 no.1 @ZimThirdEye. 🤡 no.2 @kasiryTawaz. 🤡 no.3 @NtateRanaka. 🤡 no.4 @black_jew1. 🤡 no.5 @Laque_davis. Five accounts. Weeks of threads. Numbered lists. Infographics. Historical analogies. Liberation struggle invocations. And not a single one of them has read Section 328 of the Constitution they claim to be defending. Section 328 is not ambiguous. It does not whisper. It does not hide behind semantics. It plainly provides that a constitutional amendment bill passes through Parliament. That is the procedure. That has always been the procedure. There is no constitutional provision, not one, requiring a referendum for CA3. The Mupungu case settled this. Yet these five accounts have spent weeks demanding a referendum the law never required, never contemplated, and never promised them. @ZimThirdEye runs long-form "investigative" threads framing CA3 as a "Chiwenga containment operation." Dramatic framing. Terrible jurisprudence. The Bill's constitutionality does not rise or fall on factional theory. Courts don't adjudicate vibes. @kasiryTawaz lectures followers about rules not being changed by incumbents, a fine political principle that has absolutely no bearing on whether Parliament has the constitutional authority to amend the constitution. It does. It always has. @NtateRanaka produces numbered breakdowns and infographics, the aesthetic of expertise without its substance. Visuals cannot substitute for reading the actual amendment procedure correctly. @black_jew1 calls it "nonsense" and points to institutional capture. That is an opinion, not a legal argument, and opinions will not halt constitutional processes. @Laque_davis, has the biggest audience here. And will have the most witnesses when CA3 passes. Here is what they have all missed: Zimbabwe's Parliament is not a rubber stamp standing between the people and their constitution. Parliament is the people's representative institution. Two hundred and eighty elected Members of Parliament will vote on CA3. That is direct democratic expression through the precise mechanism the constitution mandates. Demanding a referendum on top of that is not a defence of democracy, it is a rejection of the constitutional architecture these same people claim to be protecting. They have every platform. They have had weeks. They have audiences ranging from hundreds to tens of thousands. They have filed court challenges. They have organised. They have hashtagged. They have invoked Chitepo. They have invoked the liberation struggle. They have invoked the "sacred" principle of one man, one vote, while simultaneously trying to override the votes of 280 elected representatives. CA3 will pass. Because the law has always said it will. The most revealing thing about this entire episode is not that these accounts oppose the Bill. Opposition is legitimate. Scrutiny is healthy. The revelation is that five accounts who position themselves as constitutional guardians, as the last line of defence against executive overreach, cannot accurately describe the amendment procedure in the very document they claim to be defending. They have built elaborate analytical frameworks on a foundation of legal illiteracy, then have the audacity to call everyone who disagrees with them captured, compromised, or complicit. CA3 will not pass because its opponents are silenced. It will pass because they are wrong. Wrong on the law. Wrong on the procedure. Wrong on the precedent. The constitution will be amended in accordance with the constitution. #Yes2CA3 #CA3 #Zimbabwe #CA3Zimbabwe

@advocatemahere @NyapWalter Ungwaru

Good morning 5am club. The snake in Genesis didn't come hissing. It came asking questions. Looking concerned. Sounding reasonable. Discernment is learning to hear the hidden agenda of those sent to script your downfall.🌺

@NewsHawksLive Kedu George kanorwadziwa nekufunga

#CharambaBadlyWrongOnReferendum President Emmerson Mnangagwa's spokesman George Charamba, who is also Deputy Chief Secretary, Presidential Communications, Office of the President and Cabinet, is wrong in claiming parliament can trump a referendum in the current constitutional amendments. Charamba got his facts and the law wrong, checks by The NewsHawks show. In a wide-ranging interview with state media, Charamba said: “Those who were old enough to participate and follow proceedings of 2013 will know that even after the referendum, that outcome of the referendum still had to be processed through Parliament. What that means is that, a referendum does not usurp the power of Parliament. It simply provides a popular basis for legislative action. Otherwise, at law, the body which is recognised as responsible for any changes, be they at the level of the primary law or at the level of subsidiary laws, is Parliament. Right? So, really, you can't place the referendum in apposition to Parliament. You can't. You just cannot because the referendum does not give you a result that writes the Constitution. It is Parliament which is mandated to do so in terms of our law. So, really, there shouldn't be any argument at all in respect of that matter. Right?” 𝗖𝗢𝗠𝗠𝗘𝗡𝗧 Charamba got his facts and the law wrong. As a matter of fact, not law, the referendum held in 2013 on the constitution drafted by the Constitution Parliamentary Select Committee was an expression not of the constitution but of a political agreement — Global Political Agreement — between Zanu PF and the then two MDC formations (the main one led by Morgan Tsvangirai, and the other nominally by Professor Arthur Mutambara and de fact by Professor Welshman Ncube). The 2013 referendum was held under The Referendums Act [Chapter 2:10]; which was promulgated on 11 January 2000 at the behest of the Constitutional Commission, established in 1999, which had come up with a draft constitution for submission to the people in a referendum the following month. Because the Referendum Act is a subsidiary law, it’s a no-brainer that its outcome in 2013 could not bind parliament. But the legal position today is very different from the 2000 or 2013 situation. The requirement of a referendum on some amendments to the constitution is no longer up to political players, but a constitutional prerequisite. In general, section 328(5) of the constitution provides that: “A Constitutional Bill must be passed, at its last reading in the National Assembly and the Senate, by the affirmative votes of two-thirds of the membership of each House”. This is how amendments to the bulk of the constitution become law. There is no constitutionally mandated requirement for a referendum. However, subsection (6) of section 328 says, “Where a Constitutional Bill seeks to amend any provision of Chapter 4 or Chapter 16 — (a) within three months after it has been passed by the National Assembly and the Senate in accordance with subsection (5), it must be submitted to a national referendum; and (b) if it is approved by a majority of the voters voting at the referendum, the Speaker of the National Assembly must cause it to be submitted without delay to the President, who must assent to and sign it forthwith. Furthermore, and in the same vein, subsection (9) deals with how to amend section 328 itself (which is about how to amend the constitution) and it provides that, “This section may be amended only by following the procedures set out in subsections (3), (4), (5) and (6), as if this section were contained in Chapter 4. The long and short of it is Chapter 4 or Chapter 16 or section 328 of the constitution cannot be amended without a referendum. Put differently, under Section 328 of the 2013 constitution (which was adopted via referendum), specific "entrenched" sections —such as the Bill of Rights, agricultural land, and presidential term limits — cannot be amended by parliament alone; they require a national referendum.

@namataik_ @zhrc365 Is she accepting the new post?

🟥Watch former @zhrc365 chairperson, Jessie Majome, packing to leave the office after she was reassigned to the Public Service Commission. This reassignment follows the Commission's honest analysis of the Constitutional Amendment Bill No.3. Her reassignment occurred two days after she shared the Commission's position on CAB3. 🇿🇼History will remember her as a good leader.

Tsvangirai stands in his grave! These are some of the "senior Leaders", he and Nelson after him, sat with, in "party structures," strategizing the democratic struggle. Someone once said: "Many of Nelson's comrades were long compromised. A few who weren't, are compromisable"

@MthuliNcube01 @edmnangagwa @Jamwanda2 @HeraldZimbabwe @ChronicleZim @ZimTreasury Weird prosperity gospel channel. When and where is the crusade?

The 2026 IMF/World Bank Spring Meetings kicked off today in Washington, DC, under the theme "Building Prosperity Through Policy," where I am leading Zimbabwe's delegation at the meetings, which run from April 13-18, 2026.

@Laque_davis I can't really package it, whether she is a victim or part of a strategy if she doesnt fight the removal, and accept "reassignment". Where does she stand?

12. Absent retaliation, where the law itself succumbs to political convenience, we are all in trouble. Follow citizens, this is the bigger picture. It's not about forcefully turning one poor lady into a shero. It's about lamenting the total silencing of legality. enkosi!!

1. Three days ago, I (read we) wondered what Madam Majome would do next. Just seen this morning that she has apparently graciously accepted her "reassignment" from the ZRHC. Unfortunately, this is disappointing. The consequence is also something bigger than her. a thread....

@Changunda1 @adv_fulcrum When an administration nolonnger operates under a constitution that defines the government's limits, would that still be a republic?

@adv_fulcrum The “2nd Republic” has wantonly continued the destruction of career opportunities, forcing everyone to side with the “system” as a means of survival. So even the most “honorable” of our time are forced to fold into submission to survive. At least she tried to stand her ground.

Deciding not to contest ED's move to remove her from office is one thing; complying with the directive to serve as a mere commissioner on a body that is not a Chapter 12 commission is quite another. What’s your next step big sis?

@mwarire95490 @DavidColtart The rapist did no wrong. Is she the first to be raped?

@DavidColtart Who said I am a lawyer? Is she the first to be re-assigned? What does Jessie have to say about this?

What a lot of poppycock. Section 202(1)(b) does not empower the President to remove a Chair of an Independent Commission. If you are a lawyer where did you get your degree from?

@BohuslavskaKate A few square kilometers of whose territory? The hare brained VP should donate a few square kilometers of his farm to Russia if he has any.

Vance: ​“What I would say to both Russians and Ukrainians is we're talking about haggling over a few square kilometers of territory. Is that worth losing hundreds of thousands of additional russian and Ukrainian young men?" Vance is once again failing to distinguish between the aggressor and the victim, attempting to convince you that it is acceptable to pressure the victim into complying with the aggressor’s demands. He fails to recognize that he is not only urging Ukraine to surrender territories, but also the people who live there, our homes, and our most fortified defense lines dooming us for future attacks, because this war is not at all about territory, but about Ukraine existence as a state.

@usunited1157 @MichaelNIXG You needed a demented old geyser who starts a war with no strategy?

@MichaelNIXG I think we did not need a drunkin slut in the White House. And guess what, so did the Majority of USA citizens.

We had the chance for a brilliant, highly qualified leader in the White House—but chose a path many now question. No regrets on where I stood. 🇺🇸🔥 What do you think..👇

@mitchellvii MAGA crazy