Mahiya Says ZANU-PF Is The Majority And Does Not Have To Listen To The Minority

The political discourse surrounding Zimbabwe’s proposed Constitutional Amendment Bill Number 3 intensified this week as ZANU PF Secretary for War Veterans in the Politburo, Douglas Mahiya, publicly endorsed the legislation. Speaking at the party’s headquarters, Mahiya offered a robust defense of the bill, framing it not as a mere administrative change, but as a “strategic milestone” in the nation’s revolutionary journey.

Mahiya’s statement sought to root the bill deeply in the country’s history. He argued that the amendments are a “deliberate and active” extension of the principles that fueled the liberation struggle, representing the next logical step toward achieving the total political independence first envisioned by the party in 1963.

Key Arguments from Mahiya’s Address:

• A Revolutionary Mandate: Mahiya characterized the bill as reinforcing Zimbabwe’s revolutionary foundations. He asserted it is not an accidental piece of legislation but one that is “aligned with the people’s mandate,” drawing a direct line from the past struggle to current political strategy.

• Parliamentary Authority: Addressing questions of legitimacy, Mahiya pointed to ZANU PF’s majority in Parliament. He stated that the party has both the authority and the responsibility to pass such resolutions, as they represent the will of the electorate.

• Confidence in Leadership: The speech also served as an endorsement of President Emmerson Mnangagwa. Mahiya claimed the bill is a reflection of public confidence in the President’s leadership, decisiveness, and commitment to national stability and development.

Mahiya’s supportive stance is significant, as it places the official veterans’ wing of the party firmly behind the bill. However, this position is not universally held among former liberation fighters. This endorsement stands in stark contrast to other groups of war veterans who have publicly voiced their opposition to the proposed amendments and have launched a court challenge to block them.

As the debate moves forward, Mahiya’s comments highlight the core argument from the ruling party: that this constitutional change is a legitimate and necessary evolution of the state, anchored in the country’s foundational history. The coming weeks will reveal whether this narrative gains traction against the legal and political opposition.