By Correspondent
Since assuming office in November 2017, President Emmerson Mnangagwa carefully cultivated the image of a constitutionalist, a leader who respected the rule of law and would leave office when his constitutional time expired.
It was an image that distinguished him from his predecessor, Robert Mugabe, whose 37-year rule became synonymous with constitutional manipulation, personalised power and an unwillingness to relinquish office.
That carefully crafted narrative may have collapsed in a single interview.
Following his signing of the controversial Constitutional Amendment Act No. 3 of 2026 (formerly Constitutional Amendment Bill No. 3, or CAB3), Mnangagwa granted a wide-ranging interview to editors from the state-owned media.
His response to a question from ZBC reporter Reuben Barwe on how he felt when parliament passed CAB3, Mnangagwa’s response finally answered a question he had long avoided: where exactly did he stand on CAB3?
Mnangagwa did not hesitate to say “I was happy they did the right thing.”
He said he had expected Parliament to approve the Bill because it supported the country’s development agenda.
The President declared that he was proud of the progress his administration had made and could “sleep comfortably with the type of country I lead.”
Those remarks amounted to the President’s clearest public endorsement of CAB3.
They marked a significant departure from the ambiguity that had surrounded his position throughout the legislative process.
The constitutionalist promises
Before this interview, Mnangagwa had repeatedly insisted that he was a constitutionalist.
On numerous occasions including during an interview with the BBChe maintained that he would leave office when his constitutional term ended.
When supporters launched the “2030 Agenda” campaign urging him to remain in office beyond 2028, he avoided commenting on the issue.
Even editors in an earlier engagement asked him about people who were persuading him.
His response was “I will persuade my persuaders not to persuade me.”
Those statements earned him praise from some quarters.
They reinforced the narrative that the Second Republic intended to break with Zimbabwe’s political past and establish a culture in which constitutional term limits were respected.
Whether one believed those assurances or not, they became a defining feature of Mnangagwa’s public image.
Actions speak louder than words
The President’s latest remarks inevitably invite a reassessment of those earlier promises.
Although government officials argue that CA3 does not directly extend Mnangagwa’s presidential term, the amendment has widely been interpreted by critics as strengthening executive authority while creating political conditions that could facilitate the extension of his stay in power.
That is precisely why the Bill generated such fierce resistance from opposition parties, constitutional lawyers, churches, civil society organisations and sections of the public.
If Mnangagwa truly believed the constitutional debate was settled by his earlier promises to step down, his enthusiastic celebration of CAB3 appears difficult to reconcile with the constitutionalist image he projected for years.
Rather than distancing himself from a controversial constitutional amendment, he embraced it as the “right thing.”
That endorsement has inevitably fuelled accusations that the constitutionalist narrative served more as deception than as an unwavering principle.
Echoes of the Mugabe era
When Mnangagwa assumed office Zimbabweans hoped they were witnessing the birth of a different political culture.
The “New Dispensation” promised constitutionalism, democratic renewal, institutional reform and a decisive break from the politics of indefinite incumbency.
Nearly a decade later, those expectations are increasingly under strain.
Mnangagwa’s latest interview has reinforced the view that the difference between the First and the Second Republic is becoming increasingly difficult to discern.
The President may reject comparisons with Mugabe, but his public embrace of CAB3 has made such comparisons almost inevitable.
The constitutionalist who once assured Zimbabweans he would respect term limits now openly celebrates constitutional changes that many believe strengthen his political longevity.
That contrast is likely to define how many remember both his presidency and the legacy of CA3.
The constitutionalist image that helped define the early years of the Second Republic now appears overshadowed by a familiar reality in Zimbabwean politics: the enduring temptation of power, and the willingness to reshape constitutional politics in its pursuit.
——————————————————————————————————–
Love what we do? We’re dedicated to opening up democracy, one article, video and story at a time. If you find our reporting helpful, you can support the Magamba Network team by buying us a coffee. It’s quick, easy, and makes a real difference!
————————————————————————————————————
