D. Tinashé Hofisi

Tinashe, I read the full piece. It is a masterclass in the quiet, devastating art of letting the facts do the shouting while the scholar sits calmly in the footnotes. You have traced the constitutional amendments like a pathologist tracing a wound - Amendment No. 1, public interviews for senior judges, gone. Amendment No. 2, public interviews for the Prosecutor General, gone. Amendment No. 3, public interviews for everyone, gone. The Second Republic, it turns out, is allergic to the Public!!! Ziyambi says the bill does not alter term limits, only "election cycles." You note, with the gentle smile of a man who has actually read the text, that the bill simultaneously cites & overrides S. 328(7) - the very prohibition whose irrelevance it asserts. This is not a contradiction. It is a performance. ZZ is telling you the cage is open while his other hand is locking the door. Your conclusion - that Mnangagwa may prove more authoritarian than Mugabe - will offend those who measure tyranny only by decibels. Mnangagwa legislates. Mnangagwa captures the Courts & then expands their jurisdiction, because why have an independent judiciary when you can have a busy one? The Second Republic, as you so elegantly put it, longs for the powers of the First. It has simply learned that you do not need to scream when you can Amend!!!

Does it really matter that parliament will have no power to remove the indirectly elected president by a vote of no confidence & will only have the option of impeachment? Join me for this brief discussion on Thursday 14 May 2026 youtube.com/watch?v=p5ZaEVxJ…

What if it’s 2033? They may have settled for 2033. This is how it would pan out. ED’s hangers on insist that any period shorter than three years does not count as a full term and they have continuously made this their starting point in their public discourse. It may therefore be that they are racing to have CAB3 signed into law before ED’s 2023 term reaches its three years. That way, they will argue that ED has not served a second term—at least by the time the new law comes into force. If CAB3 is enacted, Parliament would promptly elect ED to a seven‑year term that would run as his second term until 2033. Keep your eyes on 2033. If CAB3 becomes law before September 2026, this is the danger we could all face. This must concern everyone. ZANU PF supporters would have been sold a ruse should that course be adopted. Zimbabweans would have been deeply disrespected, saka muchaita sei style. By every lawful means available, we must stop this unfolding madness. First price, we stop the amendment. In the event we can’t do that, we stop them from amending prior to September 2026. We can’t eat this.

ZANU PF did not emphasize popular election in 1979. Their focus was on presidential powers, not the democratic mechanism of selection. Direct election only became a constitutional reality in 1987, meaning the claim of uninterrupted continuity from 1979 is historically inaccurate. People who are disagreeing with Cde Chinamasa should cite where it is a written that in a new Zimbabwe a President would be elected by a popular vote?

Breaking: Human rights lawyer Douglas Coltart was attacked by suspected ZANU-PF supporters while attempting to leave the Constitution Amendment Bill public hearing at City Sports Centre in Harare. His phone and eyeglasses were stolen.

🇿🇼 New piece! Zimbabwe gazetted amendments to extend presidential and parliamentary terms, replace direct presidential elections with parliamentary selection, and consolidate executive control over key state institutions. @DavidHofisi examines how the bill fundamentally reorders Zimbabwe's constitutional order, increasing presidential authority while weakening mechanisms for popular participation and democratic accountability. Read more: constitutionnet.org/news/voi…

With due respect our constitution hasn't removed the safeguards around impeachment. A president can still be removed from office. Ppl will still have the leader they want through parliamentary representation. In 1980 we didn't vote for prime minister RGM directly but through ZANU

Noone agreed to the 6yr presidential term from 5yrs. Removal of direct presidential voting doesn't disenfranchise anyone. Voting for your party MPs ensures that you have the president of your choice. There is no difference really. In US popular vote does not produce a president

It's not about the incumbent Did the ppl agree to such a fundamental change? Who agreed to the executive presidency & the removal of the ceremonial president?