SECTIONS 95 AND 143 ARE NOT TERM LIMITS, AND ZANU PF KNOWS IT

Zimbabweans have watched ZANU PF twist the Constitution like a piece of wire, bending it until it fits the needs of whoever is holding power. That is why we must be brutally clear about what some provisions are, and what they are not. Sections 95(2)(b) and 143(1) deal with the length of a presidential term and the life of Parliament. They are emphatically not term limit provisions, and anyone pretending otherwise is selling a political trick dressed up as constitutional literacy.

Look at the older texts. In the 2007 version, Section 29 stated that the term of office of the President shall be a period of five years concurrent with the life of Parliament, subject to situations where Parliament is dissolved earlier or its life is extended under specific clauses. It even added a practical safeguard: the President continues in office until the person elected at the next election enters office. It also described how a President may resign by lodging a written resignation with the Speaker. Then it set out a removal process. A joint committee of the Senate and House of Assembly could prepare a report recommending removal for wilful constitutional violation, incapacity, or gross misconduct, and the Senators and members sitting together would need a two thirds vote of the total number to remove the President.

The 2007 text also anchored the life of Parliament. Section 63(4) stated that Parliament, unless sooner dissolved, shall last for five years, commencing on the day the person elected as President enters office after an election, and then stand dissolved. Again, the core idea is simple: presidential tenure and parliamentary tenure move together, and the clock runs for five years unless specific constitutional events change the timing.

Now compare that with the current Constitution. Section 95 says the term of office of the President extends until he or she resigns or is removed from office, or following an election, he or she is declared to be reelected or a new President is declared to be elected. It adds the key phrase: except as otherwise provided, the term is five years and coterminous with the life of Parliament. Section 143 mirrors the same logic for Parliament: Parliament is elected for a five year term running from the date the President elect is sworn in and assumes office, and Parliament stands dissolved at midnight on the day before the first polling day in the next general election.

This is continuity, not a new invention. The core form and substance of these sections stand firm across 1980, 1987, 2007, and 2013. They were built to manage election timing and institutional transition. They were not built to set how many times one human being may rule over the rest of us.

That is why the conclusion is unavoidable. Sections 95(2)(b) and 143(1) are not term limit provisions under section 328(1). They do not create or remove limits on the number of terms. They describe when a term begins, when it ends, and how it ties to Parliament. The provisions survived each constitutional era because any functioning democracy needs clear rules about the duration of office and the dissolution of Parliament.

If ZANU PF tries to smuggle a power grab through these sections, we must name it. The people are not fooled by footnotes. It is not constitutional clarity. It is constitutional abuse. Zimbabwe does not need clever legal gymnastics. It needs leaders who accept the meaning of the text, respect the people, and stop treating the Constitution as a weapon against accountability.