Tinotenda Hove- Former ZANU PF Secretary for Legal Affairs Paul Mangwana has claimed that the proposed constitutional amendments will not grant President Emmerson Mnangagwa an additional term in office, arguing that the two-year extension being proposed does not legally qualify as a presidential term.

Mangwana made the remarks during a ZANU PF press conference at the party’s headquarters in Harare on Wednesday, 11 March 2026. The senior ruling party official, who co-chaired the Constitution Parliamentary Committee (COPAC) that drafted the 2013 Constitution, insisted that a referendum would not be required for the proposed constitutional changes.

He said many critics were misinterpreting the provisions of the Constitution regarding presidential term limits.

“The question is whether the incumbent should benefit from the current amendment. Yes, there is that provision. If they are a term limit provision, then the current president is not going to benefit from an extension of term limits,” said Mangwana.

He explained that the Constitution defines a term as a period between three and five years, meaning any extension shorter than three years does not qualify as a full presidential term.

“People are failing to understand something in the Constitution. The Constitution provides that any period below three years is not considered to be a term, and I think that is a very important piece of the law,” he said.

Mangwana added that the proposed amendment would only extend Mnangagwa’s tenure by two years, which in his view falls short of the constitutional threshold for a term.
“The current amendment is extending [the Presidential term] by two years, which falls short of three years. So if there is an extension by two years, in terms of the Constitution, it’s not a term.”

He further argued that the proposed changes should not be interpreted as granting Mnangagwa a third term in office.
“The proposed amendment seeks to extend by two years, which falls short of a term. So he [Mnangagwa] is not benefiting from an extension of a term because a term is three years.”

Mangwana also drew comparisons with the period when Mnangagwa first assumed office after the resignation of former president Robert Mugabe in 2017.

“In the same manner, when the current president came into office, he finished the term of office of the former president, Mugabe. That period of nine months, which he served, is not considered to be a term because it’s less than three years,” he said.

He maintained that the same legal reasoning would apply to the proposed two-year extension.

“In the same manner, an extension by two years is also not considered by law to be a term. So, in effect, he is not getting another term.

“It’s not a third term, and it’s not an extension which requires an amendment to the law as provided by the same Constitution.”