Lawyer Dr Justice Alfred Mavedzenge Debunks Myths Around Presidential Term Limits

Dr Justice Alfred Mavedzenge, a Christian, comparative constitutional and international law scholar, and social justice advocate, has clarified the legal position on Zimbabwe presidential term limits amid debates around the Constitutional Amendment Bill No. 3 of 2026.

Breaking Down the Law

Dr Mavedzenge explained:

• Section 328(1) of the Constitution defines a term limit provision as one which “limits the length of time that a person may hold or occupy a public office.”
• Section 95(2)(b) sets a single presidential term at 5 years.
• Section 91(2) disqualifies anyone from seeking the presidency if they have already held office for two terms.

According to Dr Mavedzenge, section 95(2)(b) is the actual term limit provision because it directly regulates the length of time a president can serve. Section 91(2), on the other hand, regulates eligibility to seek office, not the time served. He said:

“The Constitutional Court’s seven judges were correct in Marx Mupungu v Minister of Justice (2021) when they stated that section 95(2)(b) is ‘undoubtedly’ a term limit provision that cannot be amended without a national referendum. No amount of propaganda changes that legal position.” 

Ongoing Debate on Constitutional Amendment Bill No. 3 of 2026

Last week, Dr Mavedzenge engaged Professor Jonathan Moyo in a heated X Space discussion hosted by Cite, dissecting the constitutional provisions.

Meanwhile, Justice, Legal and Parliamentary Affairs Minister Ziyambi Ziyambi has indicated that no referendum will be held, arguing that the bill does not alter term limits but merely adjusts election frequency. Critics counter that incumbents who received mandates from the people cannot extend their terms without consulting citizens.

Key Points at a Glance:

• Section 95(2)(b) regulates term length (5 years), the actual term limit.
• Section 91(2) regulates eligibility to seek office after two terms.
• Constitutional Court confirmed section 95(2)(b) requires a referendum to amend.
• Ongoing public debate centers on the bill’s impact on incumbents’ mandate.

The discussion underscores the legal distinction between term length and eligibility, highlighting why constitutional clarity is crucial for Zimbabwe’s democratic governance.