Machacha’s flimsy attempt to defend CAB3 actually exposes the sinister motives behind the unpopular bill

Tendai Ruben Mbofana

The proposed Constitutional Amendment (No. 3) Bill, or CAB3, has ignited a profound political and legal crisis, exposing deep fractures within Zimbabwe’s ruling establishment. 

If you value my social justice advocacy and writing, please consider a financial contribution to keep it going. Contact me on WhatsApp: +263 715 667 700 or Email: mbofana.tendairuben73@gmail.com

When retired senior military figures, led by Air Marshal Henry Muchena, broke ranks to warn that the bill risks destabilizing the nation by dismantling the direct presidential popular vote, it signaled an unprecedented systemic anxiety. 

The subsequent public response by ZANU PF National Political Commissar Munyaradzi Machacha sought to minimize these warnings, offering a dual defense rooted in regional precedent and semantic legal technicalities. 

However, a critical examination of Machacha’s arguments reveals a profound misalignment with both the material reality of regional governance and the foundational spirit of Zimbabwe’s supreme law.

Machacha’s initial defense leans heavily on regional equivalence, pointing to South Africa, Botswana, and Angola to argue that an indirect presidential election via parliament is a standard democratic model. 

This comparison is a false equivalence that ignores the structural mechanics of those states. 

In South Africa, the parliamentary election of the president is anchored by a highly empowered, independent judiciary and a system of proportional representation that forces robust internal party accountability and coalition-building. 

To understand why Machacha’s comparison is fraudulent, one must understand how this system actually works. 

Unlike Zimbabwe, where the country is carved into individual constituencies and whoever gets the most votes in a specific district wins that seat while all other votes are thrown away, South Africa has no constituency boundaries. 

Instead, the entire nation votes for parties, and the seats in parliament are shared out strictly according to the percentage of the total national vote each party receives.

For the ordinary voter, the math is simple and fair: if a party wins 60% of the total national vote, they are given exactly 60% of the seats in parliament. 

If a smaller opposition party wins just 5% of the national vote, they get 5% of the seats. 

Every single vote counts directly toward the final makeup of parliament, meaning a ruling party cannot manipulate boundaries or use violence in a few strategic districts to engineer an artificial majority. 

Zimbabweans know all too well that under our current constituency system, a party can easily capture a two-thirds majority in parliament by winning narrow victories in gerrymandered rural districts, even if the vast majority of the population across the country actually voted against them. 

South Africa’s system completely eliminates this distortion, ensuring that the parliament choosing the president genuinely mirrors the precise political will of the entire population.

Botswana’s model operates within an unbroken, decades-long tradition of institutional stability and strict adherence to the rule of law. 

Conversely, Angola’s closed-list system has historically centralized immense executive power, drawing widespread criticism for eroding direct accountability. 

To suggest that Zimbabwe can seamlessly adopt an indirect election model without possessing the identical, deeply entrenched institutional checks and balances found in neighboring capitals is a dangerous oversimplification. 

It strips the model of its safeguarding context, risking the total centralization of executive power under the guise of regional alignment.

Beyond this flawed regional comparison, the core of Machacha’s defense rests on an even more fragile premise regarding the extension of the current presidential term. 

In responding to the retired officers, Machacha explicitly stated that the bill does not confer an additional term on the president, but rather proposes an extension of the existing electoral cycle by two years. 

He argues that this prolongation does not technically amount to a third presidential term. 

This is semantic gymnastics of the highest order, attempting to construct a distinction without a material difference. 

To the ordinary Zimbabwean voter, the label attached to the extension is irrelevant. 

Whether framed as an elongated cycle or lengthening of the term, the physical reality remains identical: an incumbent administration remains in power beyond the strict five-year mandate originally granted by the electorate. 

Let us be clear: the debate around CAB3 has never been about a third term. 

Machacha’s admission that the bill elongates the current cycle runs directly into an insurmountable constitutional wall: Section 328(7) of the Zimbabwean Constitution. 

This specific clause explicitly dictates that any constitutional amendment that extends the length of time a person can hold office cannot benefit the individual who held that office at any time before the amendment was passed. 

By openly admitting that CAB3 is meant to add two years to the electoral cycle, Machacha has exposed the deceit. 

He is publicly confessing that this bill changes the exact timeline the President was elected to serve from five to seven years. 

Under the clear, unambiguous wording of Section 328(7), the sitting president legally cannot be the beneficiary of those additional two years. 

To bypass this restriction, the government would have to amend Section 328 itself. 

Because Section 328 is an entrenched clause, it cannot simply be changed by a whipped majority in parliament; it strictly requires a national referendum, putting the ultimate power directly back into the hands of the voters.

When senior political figures attempt to use semantic technicalities to alter the agreed-upon rules of political transition mid-stream, they create a volatile legal gray zone. 

The warnings from the retired military faction were not “mischievous,” but rather a rational calculation of the structural friction that occurs when the direct popular mandate of a commander-in-chief is tampered with. 

Ultimately, Machacha’s defense fails because it treats the constitution as a series of isolated words to be manipulated, rather than a cohesive framework designed to protect the sovereign will of the people. 

Demanding a direct vote and adhering to strict, unyielding term limits are not optional design features of Zimbabwe’s democracy; they are the very pillars holding the state together.

• Tendai Ruben Mbofana is a social justice advocate and writer. To directly receive his articles please join his WhatsApp Channel on: https://whatsapp.com/channel/0029VaqprWCIyPtRnKpkHe08