Brian Masvinu

@CdeProgressive @TateMavetera The Village Judge @TateMavetera

Happy Father's Day to ALL thd hardworking Fathers out there. Keep shining.

@ProfJNMoyo Sokumele sikhule, sifike ezingeni lokuthi sixoxisane ngobukhulu ubunono. Iqiniso kalibe liqiniso loba livela kuwuphi umlomo.

@bekemaplanka That's very silly of you. You are blindly following a married man? Slow down

The MPs who voted YES for CAB3 have betrayed the trust of the people who elected them. Instead of defending the Constitution and the will of citizens, they chose political interests over public interests. Many citizens feel disappointed, betrayed and ignored. I stand with President Nelson Chamisa and the Citizens.

@ProfJNMoyo @peterndoro Sesidiniwe ngabantu abangafuni ukuzwisisa.

The "effect" has to be of "an amendment to a term-limit provision"; not of ANY amendment. There are many provisions in the Constitution of Zimbabwe that deal with (or provide for) time but they're not all "term limit provisions". Once you use an indiscriminate "effect basis" without being clear about the premise or cause of that effect, you end up with a bambazonke interpretation, which by definition would be unworkable and untenable in terms of its practical application. The ConCourt resolved this in the landmark Mupungu case, when it rejected a precisely similar argument that the "effect" of raising the retirement age of judges of the apex courts from 70 to 75 years amounted to triggering the "non-benefit" rule in section 328(7). The ConCourt held that an age limit is not a term limit. That logic or legal reasoning employed by the ConCourt regarding an age limit, applies to a term length (such as in sections 95(2)(b) and 143(1). Various versions of term-lengths or institutional durations of the elective public offices of the President, Parliament and Local Government have been in the Constitution of Zimbabwe since 1980; and they have never been treated as term limits; because they're not. All constitutions have term lengths for elective public offices; but not all have term limits. President Mugabe stayed in office for 37 years under term-lengths with no term limits. In North America Franklin D. Roosevelt served four terms as President of the United States. Elected in 1932, 1936, 1940, and 1944, he remains the only U.S. president in history to be elected to more than two terms. Before Roosevelt's presidency, there was no legal or constitutional term limit a US president could serve until the 22nd Amendment was passed in 1951. Prior to that, US presidents had only four-year term lengths which were open to unlimited tenure or re-election. Similarly, in Zimbabwe, the various term length provisions in place since 1980 did not suddenly become term limit provisions by the introduction of section 91(2) in 2013 under the new Constitution; the true and only term limit provision governing a term limit provision for an elective public office in Zimbabwe. Notably, there's still no term limit provision in the Constitution for Members of Parliament or Local Authority Councillors. Only the President is subject to a term limit provision; and only under section 91(2) and nowhere else in or under the Constitution

This is a fair observation, and some would say a clever legal argument. However, the Constitution appears to anticipate precisely this point by focusing on the EFFECT of an amendment rather than merely its label. If the current constitutional framework provides for two five-year terms, the maximum period a President may hold office is 10 years. If that framework is amended to two seven-year terms, the maximum period becomes 14 years. While the term limit remains "two terms", the EFFECT of the amendment is to increase the length of time a person may hold office from 10 to 14 years. That is exactly the type of benefit the Constitution's "no-benefit rule" was designed to prevent an incumbent from enjoying. The real constitutional question is not what the amendment is called, but what it allows an incumbent office-holder to DO in practice.

#SUNDAYREFLECTION: Facts, law, and history stand independent of—and are in no way determined by—any individual’s political affiliation or attachment to a party or personality. To imagine otherwise, to believe that political affiliation alone makes one factually, legally, or historically correct, is the very definition of self-indulgent folly. This is why a cardinal methodological canon of political science is that theory follows practice. Only dilettantes suppose the opposite, that practice must follow theory. Those who claim to occupy the “right side of history” or to stand “with the people” solely by virtue of their political affiliation are delusional. History admits of no right side, no wrong side, and no single side. It comprises multiple sides, all embodied in and expressed through society’s always inclusive self-interpretation!

@iamfarffy @peterndoro Imigwaqo. Izibhedlela. Amabhokoho. Thalaza ndawozonke. Ungadingi okubi kuphela.

@bmasvinu @peterndoro Yiwuphi umsebenzini omuhle oyenziwayo yi government ka mnangagwa???

Section 328(7) contains the “no-benefit rule.” It states that where a constitutional amendment extends the length of time a person may hold a public office, the amendment does not apply to anyone who held that office before the amendment was made. In other words, even if Parliament lawfully extends presidential terms from five to seven years, the incumbent President cannot benefit from that extension.

@iamfarffy @peterndoro Gqoka amangilazi, uthalaze yonke indawo. Uzabona.

Lapha Baba Ndoro udibanisa izinto ezimbili ezehlukeneyo. Okuguqulwayo linani leminyaka ezathathwa ngumuntu esesihlalweni (term length) siyisusa eminyakeni emihlanu siyisa eminyakeni eyisikhombisa. Amaqembu eminyaka eyisikhombisa ebuya kabili emuntwini oyedwa (2 terms) ayithintwa. Isele injalo.

Section 328(7) contains the “no-benefit rule.” It states that where a constitutional amendment extends the length of time a person may hold a public office, the amendment does not apply to anyone who held that office before the amendment was made. In other words, even if Parliament lawfully extends presidential terms from five to seven years, the incumbent President cannot benefit from that extension.

@innocentmaruza7 Regerai vakomana

The #CA3 Bill required unity, discipline and full participation from every representative entrusted by the people. Absenteeism during such an important process cannot be ignored. Zimbabweans are asking legitimate questions: was this negligence, indifference or a lack of support for the Party position? Accountability matters. #YesToCA3 #Zimbabwe #ZANUPF #EDWorks 🇿🇼🔥

@NewsHawksLive @TateMavetera @BarbaraRwodzi When Cde Chinotimba said #CA3 was a party resolution he meant that every supporter of ZANU-PF was obligated to support the bill. And vote for the bill. But...

@LynneStactia The #BBC News World has endorsed #CA3 and can't wait for the bill to sail through SENATE from Tuesday.

TERM LENGTH and TERM LIMIT are not one and the same. A longer term does not automatically mean more terms, because duration and limitation are separate constitutional matters. @stendai_gondwe @VaMabhena263 @bashi92178

@agencygumbo @JamesonTimba @DCPlatform25 @cdfzim @Zinasuzim @OMasaraure @DubekoSibanda Dangerous statement Honorable.

it’s far from over & the fight is not yet lost…We have always insisted that the fight against CAB3 has three arenas. Parliament-Court-Streets!

Dear Honourable @HonJMuswereJnr, When Parliament voted on #CA3, you were absent. In politics, absence is a vote in itself. You have sent a clear message to Zimbabweans about your commitment and position on the Bill and on President @edmnangagwa 's #Vision2030 agenda.

@noto2030 @peterndoro Lo laye. Okwakho yikuphikisa kuphela. Bazakutshiya obala

@peterndoro Well said Peter

@peterndoro You cannot defend constitutionalism by denying Parliament its constitutional power to legislate. #CA3 follows a lawful process and preserves key democratic safeguards.