Mnangagwa’s assurances on term extension are devoid of meaning and credibility

BY Tendai Ruben Mbofana

SO, the political games continue.

Yesterday’s pronouncement by President Emmerson Mnangagwa’s that he will “operate within the confines of the Constitution and not go beyond his stipulated term in office” should not be mistaken for a definitive rejection of attempts to extend his stay in power.

In fact, if anything, his words are an exercise in calculated ambiguity.

For those eager to take them as gospel, a closer examination is warranted.

What exactly does Mnangagwa mean when he says he will act within the Constitution?

That statement could just as easily mean that if the Constitution is amended to allow him to remain in power beyond his two-term limit, he will simply abide by that new reality.

It is a cleverly crafted remark that gives him enough room to maneuver, while simultaneously providing reassurance to those who demand constitutional adherence.

In truth, his statement is meaningless.

This is not the first time Mnangagwa has given such public assurances, only for events to unfold in ways that cast doubt on his sincerity.

In Mutare, he made a similar declaration that he had no interest in extending his term.

Then, again, in a later interview, he repeated this position.

Yet, despite these remarks, his supporters within ZANU-PF have continued with a vigorous campaign to push for his term extension, claiming to be acting in accordance with “Resolution Number One” of the party’s Annual People’s Conference.

If Mnangagwa was truly committed to stepping down after his constitutional two five-year terms, why has he never decisively silenced these elements?

Why has he allowed this campaign to not only persist but intensify?

Even more telling is the statement made by ZANU-PF Secretary for Legal Affairs, Patrick Chinamasa, who revealed at the party’s Annual People’s Conference in Bulawayo last year that Mnangagwa had personally assured him at least three times that he was not interested in extending his term.

Three times.

And yet, the push for an extension has not only continued but has grown stronger, leading to fierce divisions within the ruling party itself.

One cannot ignore the sheer contradiction at play.

If the president has indeed privately dismissed any intention to overstay his mandate, why has he taken no decisive action to quash the relentless lobbying?

This is no trivial matter.

The battle over whether Mnangagwa should remain in power beyond his constitutional limit has turned into one of the most contentious and destabilizing issues within ZANU-PF and Zimbabwe as a whole.

Former freedom fighters, some of whom played a pivotal role in securing the country’s independence, have been particularly vocal in their opposition to the move.

They see it as yet another betrayal of the ideals of the liberation struggle by a political elite whose self-serving ambitions run contrary to the fight for democracy and a better life for all Zimbabweans.

Their resistance is not just political but deeply personal.

These are men and women who have seen the worst of war and who understand, perhaps better than most, the dangers of allowing a leader to subvert constitutional order for personal gain.

The ramifications of this dispute extend far beyond party politics.

The tug-of-war over Mnangagwa’s possible term extension has escalated into a serious national security concern.

Both Mnangagwa and his deputy, Vice President Constantino Chiwenga, have strong military ties, and their influence over the security apparatus is undeniable.

The divisions that have emerged within ZANU-PF as a result of this power struggle have not only heightened tensions within the party but also increased the risk of instability within the armed forces themselves.

The question must be asked: If Mnangagwa is truly committed to stepping down, why is he allowing a situation to fester that could ultimately end in violent confrontation?

The reality is that Zimbabwe has seen this game before.

Many leaders across Africa have used similar tactics—offering vague commitments to constitutional order while subtly encouraging their allies to prepare the groundwork for an extension.

It is a well-worn strategy.

Allow the idea to be floated, let the party structures push for it, ensure that a seemingly organic movement emerges, and then, when the pressure reaches its peak, reluctantly “accept the will of the people.”

By then, the Constitution will have been amended, and the leader in question can claim to be merely abiding by the new legal framework.

Mnangagwa’s refusal to outright condemn the push for an extension is telling.

If he were truly against it, there would be no ambiguity. He would have made it categorically clear that any attempts to amend the Constitution to extend his term are not only unnecessary but unacceptable.

He would have reined in his supporters, issued strong public statements against the campaign, and taken concrete steps to ensure that his departure from office follows the dictates of the law.

Yet, none of that has happened.

Instead, what we see is a carefully choreographed dance—hints of reluctance, but never outright rejection.

At the heart of this issue is a fundamental question: Is Zimbabwe truly a democracy, or is it merely a country where constitutional limits exist only in theory but not in practice?

The strength of a democracy is not tested when leaders respect term limits willingly; it is tested when they are pressured to overstay their welcome and still refuse.

As things stand, Mnangagwa has failed this test.

He has failed to shut down those clamoring for his continued rule.

He has failed to create an environment where the very notion of term extension would be considered unacceptable.

And in doing so, he has cast doubt on whether he ever truly intended to leave when his time is up.

Zimbabwe has already suffered immensely under the weight of political manipulation and self-serving leadership.

The country’s economy remains in shambles, corruption is rampant, and millions of citizens struggle daily just to survive.

The focus should be on fixing these pressing issues, not on crafting schemes to keep one man in power indefinitely.

The fact that this debate is even happening, 45 years after independence, is an indictment of the country’s leadership.

It is a damning statement that Zimbabwe remains trapped in a cycle of authoritarianism disguised as constitutionalism.

If Mnangagwa is sincere about his promise to step down at the end of his term, let him prove it through action, not just words.

Let him publicly denounce any attempts to amend the Constitution to keep him in office.

Let him order his party structures to abandon this ill-fated campaign.

Let him demonstrate, beyond all doubt, that Zimbabwe is not just another African country where term limits are a suggestion rather than a rule.

Anything less, and his assurances remain nothing more than empty words, devoid of meaning, purpose, or credibility.

● Tendai Ruben Mbofana is a social justice advocate and writer. Please feel free to WhatsApp or Call: +263715667700 | +263782283975, or email: mbofana.tendairuben73@gmail.com, or visit website: https://mbofanatendairuben.news.blog/

About Post Author