Tags

@GeorgeCharamba2 Kusasvoda moti passports makakwidza, fuel mokwidza futi muchivanda ne hondo kunge iri muzimbabwe or neighboring country Why is it that Zim govt priority is to destroy its citizens livelihood and way of life

PUBLIC NOTICE!!!

@TheTruthPanther Documented or not they will still flood SA. Rather document than undocument The graduates who passed 30% pass mark will never understand or think beyond what it entails having large number of undocumented in your hood

Operation Dudula Files Urgent Pretoria High Court Application to Scrap Home Affairs Minister’s 18-Month Zimbabwean Permit Extension, Arguing that Government Exceeded Legal Authority Operation Dudula has filed an urgent application in the High Court in Pretoria to have the Minister of Home Affairs' recent extension of Zimbabwean Exemption Permits declared unlawful and set aside. The organisation argues the October 2025 directive oversteps legal bounds following the lapse of a prior court order. The case, registered under number 066638/2026, names the Minister of Home Affairs and Director-General as first and second respondents, alongside the Helen Suzman Foundation, Consortium for Refugees and Migrants in South Africa, Zimbabwe Immigration Federation NPC, and African Amity NPC as further respondents. Operation Dudula's president, Zandile Dabula, deposed to the founding affidavit supporting the notice of motion. The application targets the ministerial directive published in Government Gazette No. R6716 on 7 October 2025, which extended ZEPs until 27 May 2027—an 18-month period. This came nearly a year after the previous court-ordered 12-month validity expired on 6 November 2024, without any extension sought from the court or finalisation of the required reconsideration process under PAJA. The organisation seeks a court order directing the Minister and Director-General to publish notices in the Gazette and national newspapers, calling on affected ZEP holders to apply for alternative legal status within six months, with applications to be finalised within three months thereafter. They also demand costs, including for two counsel. The core argument rests on the lapse of the 2023 High Court judgment in the Helen Suzman Foundation matter, which had deemed ZEPs valid for 12 months pending proper reconsideration. Operation Dudula contends no valid permits existed post-November 2024 for the Minister to extend, rendering the directive invalid and without legislative authority.

@drDendere The same ED burried Geza in the village and u are telling us hez forgiving

Opposition…what is the lesson from this photo? People in the OPP actually have a lot less to hate each other for & yet unity is elusive. Anyway, noto2030

@KMutisi 2030 hogwash what has changed

It’s UNCONSTITUTIONAL to do a Referendum when the Constitution doesn’t demand it… Referendums are not done as a show of support, they are done because the Law demands that they must done. We can’t waste money on something not required by law…

@nickmangwana @MekeTitus Ko apa moti kudii since Makati Zim citizens are your priority? Asi hondo yavemuzimbabwe

Ini hangu ndinoti 247 to 2030 #CAB3

@tofara3tofara @mschofield137 @Dr_JAMavedzenge So in other words postponing elections require a referendum

@mphathi2005 @mschofield137 @Dr_JAMavedzenge If the amendment applies immediately to the sitting President (or delays the next election so the sitting President serves longer), that is an extension of incumbents’ time in office and will require a referendum

This is what happens when you read the Constitution upside down or rely sorely on the Oxford English dictionary to interpret the law. Constitutional interpretation is a scientific discipline and people spend years being trained in that. But in the case of the dispute at hand, there is no need to bring a dictionary. One needs to just read the clear definition of a term limit provision provided for in section 328(1) as follows “a term limit provision means a provision of this Constitution which limits the LENGTH OF TIME that a person [Mnangagwa] may hold or occupy a public office”. With regard to your illustration of two water bottles, when you increase the size (length) of one bottle, you are increasing the length of time that one occupies a public office and thats amending a term limit provision, according to section 328(1). Also, instead of bringing water containers to this discussion, you might need to bring case law. We have Constitutional Court Judgments which say the term of office is 5 years[Jealousy Mawarire v Robert Mugabe-2013] and Parliament cannot change the 5 year term limit without a national referendum [Marx Mupungu v Minister of Justice-2021] @BitiTendai @DCPlatform25 @freemanchari @cdfzim @NewsHawksLive

@KMutisi @MekeTitus Hauguti ya chivhayo wakaita sei

He can go to 2050 …. Physically strong, mentally sharp.

@mschofield137 @tofara3tofara @Dr_JAMavedzenge Makes sense but support legally

@mphathi2005 @tofara3tofara @Dr_JAMavedzenge Like I said, there is no law which says parliament cannot amend the number of terms. The issue here is about length of time in office, of which section 328(7) does not allow current holders of office to benefit from an amendment which extends the amount of time they are in office

@tofara3tofara @mschofield137 @Dr_JAMavedzenge At least here u tried I will verify

@mschofield137 @mphathi2005 @Dr_JAMavedzenge It is incorrect to say s328(7) only addresses “term length” and not “term limits.” The subsection links the subject (a term‑limit provision) with the forbidden effect (extending time in office). Both mechanisms — altering term limits (S91/S95) and altering term length

@mschofield137 @tofara3tofara @Dr_JAMavedzenge My boss u aren't addressing me. I agree with u that term limit... 2 terms and length of a term is 5 yrs. The matter I want u to address is the extension of 5 to 7 Years.... Does it require referendum or not Ed isn't seeking 3rd term but extension of a term from 5 to 7

@tofara3tofara @mphathi2005 @Dr_JAMavedzenge So the question now is, is CAB3 an amendment to a term-limit provision. I guess for that we have to look at the definition of a term-limit provision, which is the length of time a person may hold/occupy public office. Which Provisions would those be? It's S91 and S95 right?

@tofara3tofara @Dr_JAMavedzenge Cite the law, section ipi? I hope it's talking of length not term limit

@mphathi2005 @Dr_JAMavedzenge a referendum will almost certainly be required for any attempt to change incumbents’ tenure — attempts to avoid it are constitutionally vulnerable.

@mschofield137 @tofara3tofara @Dr_JAMavedzenge Kukanzi primary and sec education ine 3 terms in a year. Kana Minister we education akati last term yaisioera muna November ngaichioera muna January are we going to say we now have 4 terms or the last term length has been extended

@mphathi2005 @tofara3tofara @Dr_JAMavedzenge Term limit and term length are the same. Go read 328(7), any amendment which seeks to extend the LENGTH OF TIME that someone is in PUBLIC OFFICE will not apply to an incumbent. Parliament can increase number of years, that's not in debate, but it won't apply to ED and current MPs

@mschofield137 @tofara3tofara @Dr_JAMavedzenge Term limit we wer told it's 2 terms no one is seeking the 3rd Term length the life span of a term is 5 yrs and ED is seeking extension from 5 to 2...lengthening it.... Does this require referendum

@tofara3tofara @Dr_JAMavedzenge What does it say about term length increase

@mphathi2005 @Dr_JAMavedzenge Section 328(7) protects against both increases in the number of terms and increases in the length of terms

@tofara3tofara @Dr_JAMavedzenge Hear u but can that term length be done without a referendum as called for by zanupf? I want legal input on this

@mphathi2005 @Dr_JAMavedzenge De facto” extension: Even when only term length is changed, the net effect can be an extension of incumbency (longer single mandates, delayed elections), which is why constitutional safeguards like s328(7) prohibit amendments that benefit current officeholders.

@TheBigCharlatan @Busbytee @Dr_JAMavedzenge @Mhofuyemukono08 It's an either referendum or can be passed thru parliament if it doesn't require referendum So those legally grounded should tell us whether term length require referendum or parliament As for term limit no one is seeking third term but extension of a term

@Busbytee @mphathi2005 @Dr_JAMavedzenge @Mhofuyemukono08 Kana pasina mutemo unovamisa varikuitirei bill racho?Ngavangotonge zve kusvika pavadira handiti hapana mutemo?

@Busbytee @Dr_JAMavedzenge @Mhofuyemukono08 They dodge the real issue We want to know if term length require a referendum! Because that's where the issue is

@mphathi2005 @Dr_JAMavedzenge @Mhofuyemukono08 I was waiting too. Ini handina ruzivo nezve bill Kusiya kwekunzi zanu yakashata. Iri kuda kuita zvakashata. Mutemo uripo here unomisa izvi pasina case ref. Or mu case ref macho mainzii mumashoko mapfupi. Munhu wese akungoti chatgpt and copilot kunge muri mu law class

@nickmangwana The country that prioritizes it's citizens is at it again. Not forgetting the prize of a passport knowing well that diaspora is our source of living

@nickmangwana Since when Zim prioritizes it's citizens?, Zims are butchered, burnt, abused, killed next door limpopo while Zim govt turns a blind eye & have never heard of any assistance from the govt unlike other govts who even negotiate with kidnappers to rescue citizens

Govt strongly advises its citizens against enlisting in the military forces of other nations. We are gravely concerned for the safety and well-being of our nationals abroad. Reports received indicate that in such circumstances, our compatriots may not always receive treatment equal to that of those nations’ service members. Furthermore, in the event of a tragedy, the repatriation of mortal remains is a complex process that can deny families the crucial opportunity for closure. The safety of Zimbabweans and the peace of mind of their loved ones remain our utmost priority.

@tofara3tofara @Dr_JAMavedzenge Can the debate be narrowed to term length and would want to understand if term length require a referendum Tafadzwa is not disputing term limits and that term amounts to 5 yrs I wonder y people still repeating that aspect where there is no dispute The issue is abt length

@Dr_JAMavedzenge Section 328(1) defines a term‑limit provision as one that limits the length of time a person may hold public office. The five‑year presidential term therefore constitutes a term‑limit provision. Extending that period to seven years alters the length of time a person