By Lovemore Lubinda
Pressure is mounting on Zimbabwean President Emmerson Mnangagwa after he signed into law the widely discredited Constitutional Amendment Act number 3 on 7 July.
The law, known as CAA3, extends presidential term limits and removes direct election of the president, effectively opening a path for Mnangagwa to remain in office until 2030.
As if that is not enough, a fresh push to further extend his stay in power until 2037 is gaining traction within his party ZANU PF, with Manicaland becoming the latest province to back the controversial proposal.
Meanwhile, since the signing, the country has been rocked by nationwide protests, stay-aways, legal challenges and a visible crackdown by security forces.
Citizens, civic groups and opposition parties have condemned the amendment as an attempt to entrench power and roll back democratic gains.
The backlash has been immediate and widespread. Streets in Harare, Bulawayo and Mutare saw scattered demonstrations last week.
Protesters carried placards and chanted against the amendment, calling it unconstitutional and undemocratic.
The response from authorities was swift. Police deployed tear gas and water cannons in several areas.
Internet-based communications were disrupted in parts of the country prior and during the protests, a move rights groups say was aimed at limiting coordination and coverage.
Some activists were arrested and detained. Human rights organizations in Zimbabwe have demanded their immediate release and accused the state of using the law to silence dissent.
The Sungano yeVanhu – Ubumbano Lomphakathi has emerged as the leading coalition opposing CAA3.
The group endorsed the 31 July stay-away, which drew significant participation in urban centers and brought international attention to Zimbabwe’s deepening constitutional crisis.
Opposition parties have taken the fight to the courts. Several parties have filed constitutional court applications arguing that the sweeping term extensions and the removal of direct presidential elections require a national referendum.
Their legal teams contend that Parliament cannot unilaterally alter the core structure of the presidency without consulting the people. The cases are expected to test both the independence of the judiciary and the limits of executive power.
Local civic groups have slammed the arrests that followed the protests, describing them as a blatant breach of the constitution, which guarantees the right to assemble and protest peacefully.
In statements released over the weekend, the groups said the use of force against unarmed demonstrators sets a dangerous precedent ahead of future elections.
They called on government to create space for dialogue rather than rely on security operations.
Human rights defenders are now calling on the Zimbabwean government to release all activists detained in connection with the protests, to drop all charges linked to peaceful assembly, and to respect the rule of law.
Watchdogs claim authorities are stepping up a crackdown on basic freedoms, using security forces to crush dissent as public frustration grows over the country’s worsening economic crisis and governance issues.
Rising food prices, fuel costs and unemployment have added fuel to the anger, with many Zimbabweans saying CAA3 ignores their immediate survival needs.
Inside ZANU-PF, the picture appears more complicated than the public statements suggest. Party insiders report that Mnangagwa’s claim of “collective consensus” around the amendment masked intense factional succession battles. Sources within the party say military-aligned factions resisted the move, fearing it would destabilize internal balance and trigger more unrest.
The divisions highlight how CAA3 is not only a national issue but also a flashpoint within the ruling party itself, where questions about who succeeds Mnangagwa have simmered for years.
The timing of the amendment has also drawn criticism. With the economy under strain and service delivery faltering in many provinces, critics argue that government should be focused on bread-and-butter issues instead of constitutional engineering.
Business groups have warned that political instability will scare off investment, while labor unions say workers cannot afford more uncertainty.
Regional observers are watching closely. Zimbabwe’s neighbors in SADC have a history of quiet diplomacy on governance matters, but the visibility of the protests and the legal challenges have made it harder to ignore.
International human rights organizations have issued statements urging Zimbabwe to uphold constitutionalism and to avoid measures that undermine electoral credibility.
For now, Mnangagwa’s government maintains that CAA3 was passed through proper parliamentary process and reflects the will of the people’s representatives.
Government spokespeople argue that the changes are necessary for continuity and stability. That message has not resonated on the streets, where frustration is palpable.
The coming weeks will be decisive. The constitutional court must decide whether to hear the opposition challenges on an urgent basis. The police will have to balance public order with respect for rights. And the Sungano yeVanhu coalition says more actions are planned if the government does not back down.
What is clear is that CAA3 has done more than extend a presidential term on paper. It has reopened deep wounds about power, accountability and the future of democracy in Zimbabwe. As pressure mounts, Mnangagwa faces a choice between pushing ahead with a law that many reject, or finding a way to address the anger before it grows further.
The activists in detention, the protesters in the streets, and the lawyers in court are all testing the same question: whose Zimbabwe is it? The answer may determine not just 2030, but the years between now and then.
Leave a Reply