TOP SECRET: INTELLIGENCE & RISK ASSESSMENT
SUBJECT: PROCEDURAL AND SUBSTANTIVE IRREGULARITIES IN DRAFT CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT BILL, 2026 TO BE TABLED BY MINISTER OF JUSTICE, LEGAL AND PARLIAMENTARY AFFAIRS, HON. ZIYAMBI ZIYAMBI & UNAUTHORIZED DEPARTURE FROM MUTARE CONFERENCE RESOLUTION NUMBER 1.
DATE: 16 January 2026
SOURCE CLASSIFICATION: Multiple Sources (HUMINT, SIGINT, FININT)
DISSEMINATION CONTROLS: FOR THE ZIMBABWE LEADERSHIP GUARANTORS // HANDLE VIA SECURE CHANNELS ONLY
1. PURPOSE AND URGENCY (Page 1)
This Memorandum constitutes an urgent and critical review of the proposed Constitution of Zimbabwe (Amendment) Bill, 2025 (the “Draft Bill”) and its accompanying Cabinet Memorandum. Our review and critical advice is that the Draft Bill is fatally flawed on two fundamental grounds:
-
a) Substantive Non-Compliance: It has been unlawfully expanded into a wholesale constitutional revision that flagrantly violates the specific, narrow mandate of ZANU PF’s Mutare Conference Resolution Number 1.
-
b) Procedural Illegality: Its very premise—to effect a Presidential term extension—ignores and attempts to bypass the mandatory constitutional requirement for a national referendum as stipulated by Section 328(7) of the Constitution of Zimbabwe.
2. THE MANDATE: THE PRECISE TERMS OF RESOLUTION NUMBER 1 (Page 2)
Resolution Number 1 was a clear, singular, and time-sensitive political directive from the supreme organ of ZANU PF (the “Party”):
-
a) Sole Objective: To initiate the legal process for extending President Mnangagwa’s term of office to 2030, ensuring continuity for the Vision 2030 agenda.
-
b) Constrained Scope: The resolution was exclusively focused on addressing the Presidential term limit. It was not a mandate for comprehensive constitutional reform, institutional redesign, or electoral system overhaul.
-
c) Guiding Principle: It was framed as a necessary step for national stability and developmental continuity, requiring a specific legal adjustment.
The resolution was an instruction to solve a defined problem, not to open a Pandora’s Box of constitutional change.
3. CRITICAL ANALYSIS: GROSS SUBSTANTIVE DEVIATION FROM THE MANDATE (Pages 3, 5 & 7)
The Draft Bill is not an execution of Resolution Number 1; it is a hijacking of it to smuggle in a separate, pre-existing reform agenda. This constitutes a failure of mandate and a lack of discipline specifically by the Minister of Justice, Legal and Parliamentary Affairs, Hon. Ziyambi Ziyambi and the Attorney General, Hon. Virginia Mabhiza who are being assisted by the fugitive from Zimbabwean Law, Jonathan Moyo, former Minister of the Government of Zimbabwe, now residing in Nairobi, Kenya.
| # | Proposed Amendment | Nature of Change | Violation of Resolution No. 1 |
| a) | Clause 2 (New Section 92) | Abolishes Direct Presidential Elections. Replaces with parliamentary election. | This is a fundamental transformation of Zimbabwe’s democracy, altering the source of executive legitimacy. Resolution No. 1 sought continuity within the existing system, not regime change of the system itself. This is a monumental, unauthorized policy shift. |
| b) | Clause 7 and 8 | Extends Parliamentary term to 7 years. | Resolution No. 1 concerned the President. Extending Parliament’s term is a separate, major constitutional change that alters democratic accountability, introduced without party debate or mandate. |
| c) | Clause 9-11 and 16 | Creates Delimitation Commission; Transfers Voter Registration to Registrar-General. | These are profound reforms to electoral administration and integrity, among the most sensitive in any democracy. They are complex, standalone technical requirements; their inclusion here is opportunistic and reckless, guaranteed to attract fierce opposition that will obscure the primary goal. |
| d) | Clause 14 | Removes Transparency in Judicial Appointments (public interviews). | A significant rollback of judicial reform, unrelated to term limits or Agenda 2030. |
| e) | Clause 15 | Amends Section 212 on Defense Forces functions. Changes wording from “to uphold this Constitution” to “in accordance with Constitution.” | This is a highly sensitive and dangerous amendment that alters the foundational mandate of the Defence Forces. It could be misconstrued as diluting their constitutional duty and raises profound questions about civil-military relations. It is a matter of national security policy, completely unrelated to a presidential term extension and introduced without any prior strategic or security sector consultation. |
| f) | Clause 20 | Removes Code of Conduct for Traditional Leaders from Constitution. | A specific amendment concerning traditional leaders, again unrelated to presidential tenure or Agenda 2030 implementation. |
| g) | Clauses 17, 18, 21 | Abolishes the Gender Commission and the National Peace & Reconciliation Commission (NPRC). | This is a direct assault on independent constitutional Chapter 12 Commissions. Abolishing the NPRC before its mandated work is complete is particularly egregious and would be internationally condemned. This has absolutely no connection to extending a presidential term. |
The Minister of Justice has substituted the Party’s focused directive with his own omnibus constitutional reform project. This is an act of overreach that dilutes the core message, creates a target-rich environment for opponents, and demonstrates a disregard for the Party’s decision-making authority.
4. THE FATAL PROCEDURAL FLAW: BLATANT DISREGARD FOR SECTION 328(7) (Page 5)
This is the most serious legal defect, rendering the entire endeavor potentially null and void from inception.
-
a) Section 328(7) of the Constitution states: “Notwithstanding any other provision of this section, an amendment to a term-limit provision of the Constitution that has the effect of extending the length of time that a person may hold or occupy any public office must be approved by a majority of the voters in a referendum.”
-
b) The Draft Bill’s Attempted Bypass: Clauses 3, 7, and 8 of the Draft Bill contain “notwithstanding section 328(7)” clauses. These clauses represent a direct and brazen attempt to legislate away a supreme constitutional requirement. A Parliamentary act cannot override the Constitution’s own entrenched amendment procedures.
-
c) Legal Reality: Any constitutional amendment extending the President’s term MUST, by supreme law, be put to a national referendum. There is no legal shortcut. To proceed with a Parliamentary process alone is to enact a law that is fundamentally ultra vires and will be struck down by the Constitutional Court, causing immense reputational damage and chaos.
-
d) Strategic Implication: The Mutare Resolution called for “legal processes.” The foremost legal process for this specific change is a referendum. By drafting a bill that tries to sidestep this, the Ministry of Justice is guiding the Party and Government into a legal dead end.
5. OVERALL ASSESSMENT (Page 9 & 4)
The current process, being driven by the Minister of Justice, Legal and Parliamentary Affairs, Hon. Ziyambi Ziyambi and the Attorney General, Hon. Virginia Mabhiza who are being assisted by the fugitive from Zimbabwean Law, Jonathan Moyo… is not only illegitimate but very dangerous.
-
a) It violates the ZANU PF Party Mandate by introducing dozens of unauthorized changes, including a perilous alteration to the Defence Forces’ constitutional mandate.
-
b) It violates the National Constitution by attempting to circumvent a mandatory referendum.
-
c) It exposes the President (Executive), ZANU PF Party and Government to ridicule and legal challenge for proposing a bill that is both politically bloated and legally defective and a public relations disaster, making it appear as if we fear the will of the people.
Consequently, the process driven by the Ministry of Justice is irregular, procedurally defective, and risks plunging the Party and Government into a severe constitutional crisis and political embarrassment. This initiative must be halted by Cabinet forthwith. To proceed on the current path is to court constitutional illegitimacy, political turmoil, and the failure of the very objective Resolution Number 1 sought to achieve.
6. RECOMMENDATIONS (Page 8)
It is wise and critically important for The President of the Republic of Zimbabwe, His Excellency Dr. E. D. Mnangagwa, specifically His Presidium and Cabinet to:
-
a) IMMEDIATELY REJECT AND SET ASIDE the present Constitution of Zimbabwe (Amendment) Bill, 2025, and accompanying Memorandum, in their entirety.
-
b) HALT ALL FURTHER PROCEDURAL STEPS on this specific draft bill forthwith.
-
c) DIRECT the Minister of Justice to return to the exact letter and spirit of Resolution Number 1.
-
d) INSTRUCT the Minister of Justice and the Attorney General to initiate a proper, constitutional process which must:
-
i. Begin with the honest acknowledgment that a term limit extension requires a national referendum under Section 328(7).
-
ii. Prepare a simple, standalone bill containing only the amendments necessary to facilitate the term extension to 2030 and any consequentially aligned electoral timelines.
-
iii. Submit this clean bill alongside the mandatory request for the allocation of resources and the setting of a date for a national referendum, in full compliance with the supreme law of Zimbabwe, the Constitution.
-
