South African Opposition Criticises Mnangagwa Over Constitutional Reforms

Zimbabwe's recently enacted Constitution of Zimbabwe Amendment (No. 3) Act, 2026 (Act No. 6 of 2026), has sparked significant controversy, drawing sharp criticism from South African opposition parties. Signed into law on July 7, 2026, the amendment introduces sweeping changes, including replacing the direct popular election of the President with a parliamentary vote, extending presidential and parliamentary terms from five to seven years, and transferring key electoral functions from the Zimbabwe Electoral Commission. Critics, both domestic and international, argue that these reforms undermine democratic governance, consolidate executive power, and weaken constitutional safeguards established by the 2013 Constitution. The South African opposition has urged the Zimbabwean government to prioritise economic stability over constitutional alterations, highlighting the regional implications of Zimbabwe's political and economic trajectory.

The Republic of Zimbabwe has recently enacted the Constitution of Zimbabwe Amendment (No. 3) Act, 2026 (Act No. 6 of 2026), a legislative development that has ignited a fresh wave of debate and condemnation, particularly from South African opposition parties. Signed into law by President Emmerson Mnangagwa on July 7, 2026, this amendment represents the third significant alteration to the country's 2013 Constitution, following earlier amendments in 2017 and 2021. The swift passage and substantive content of Act No. 6 of 2026 have been met with strong objections, with critics arguing that the reforms are designed to entrench executive power rather than address the nation's pressing socio-economic challenges.

South African opposition figures, including the Economic Freedom Fighters (EFF) and Mmusi Maimane, have publicly criticised President Mnangagwa's decision, asserting that the focus should be on alleviating the country's economic hardships rather than on constitutional changes perceived to undermine democratic principles. This article will delve into the key provisions of the Constitution of Zimbabwe Amendment (No. 3) Act, 2026, examine the legal and political context surrounding its enactment, and analyse the implications of these reforms for constitutionalism and the rule of law in Zimbabwe, considering the regional concerns raised by its neighbours.

Zimbabwe's current constitutional framework is rooted in the Constitution of Zimbabwe Amendment (No. 20) Act 2013, which was approved by a national referendum in March 2013 and came into full force on August 22, 2013. This 2013 Constitution was widely lauded as a progressive document, establishing a unitary, democratic, and sovereign republic with a strong emphasis on fundamental rights, good governance, devolution of power, and the separation of powers. It sought to move away from the legacy of the Lancaster House Constitution, which had undergone numerous amendments and was criticised for its authoritarian tendencies.

However, the 2013 Constitution has since been subjected to significant amendments. The Constitution of Zimbabwe Amendment (No. 1) Act, 2017, and more notably, the Constitution of Zimbabwe Amendment (No. 2) Act, 2021 (Act No. 2 of 2021), introduced substantial changes. The 2021 amendment, signed into law on May 7, 2021, notably altered judicial tenure, the appointment and promotion of judges (removing public interviews for promotions), and the 'running mate' clause for Vice-Presidents. These earlier amendments also faced considerable criticism for centralising presidential power and potentially undermining judicial independence, setting a precedent for the executive-led constitutional reforms now seen in Act No. 3 of 2026.

The Constitution of Zimbabwe Amendment (No. 3) Act, 2026 (Act No. 6 of 2026), introduces profound changes that fundamentally reshape Zimbabwe's governance structure. A central and highly contentious provision is the replacement of the direct popular election of the President with an election by a joint sitting of Parliament. This move is seen by critics as a significant rollback of democratic participation, shifting power from the electorate to the legislative body, which is largely controlled by the ruling party. Furthermore, the Act extends the terms of office for the President, Parliament, and local authorities from five to seven years. Crucially, transitional provisions within the Act aim to apply this extended term to the current electoral period, potentially prolonging President Mnangagwa's tenure until 2030, despite Section 328(7) of the Constitution which generally prohibits amendments extending term limits from benefiting incumbents.

Beyond presidential powers, the amendment significantly impacts electoral institutions. It transfers voter registration and the management of the voters' roll from the Zimbabwe Electoral Commission (ZEC) to the Registrar-General's office, and establishes a new Zimbabwe Electoral Delimitation Commission. These changes raise concerns about the independence and impartiality of electoral processes, as the Registrar-General's office is an executive-controlled entity. The Act also abolishes the National Peace and Reconciliation Commission (NPRC) and potentially the Zimbabwe Gender Commission, transferring their functions to the Zimbabwe Human Rights Commission, a move that critics fear could dilute the focus and effectiveness of these critical oversight bodies.

Further alterations include restructuring aspects of the judiciary, such as removing public interviews for judicial appointments, and expanding the Senate by allowing the President to appoint ten additional senators. These provisions, building on the precedent set by the 2021 amendment, are viewed as further eroding judicial independence and increasing executive influence over the legislative and judicial branches. The cumulative effect of these amendments, according to legal analysts and civil society organisations, is a systematic consolidation of executive authority at the expense of constitutional checks and balances and popular sovereignty.

The government, however, defends these reforms as "constructive" and necessary to strengthen governance, improve institutional efficiency, and ensure policy continuity. They argue that the amendments align Zimbabwe with contemporary African constitutional standards and are aimed at reducing "election-related toxicity" to foster an environment conducive to economic transformation under Vision 2030. Despite these justifications, the process of enactment, including allegations of fast-tracking and insufficient public consultation, has drawn criticism, with legal challenges to the Act being dismissed by the Constitutional Court without a ruling on their merits.

The enactment of the Constitution of Zimbabwe Amendment (No. 3) Act, 2026, marks a pivotal moment in Zimbabwe's constitutional trajectory, drawing a clear line between the government's stated objectives of improved governance and the concerns of those who perceive a regression in democratic principles. For legal practitioners, particularly those advising clients with interests in Zimbabwe, these amendments necessitate a thorough understanding of the altered legal landscape. The changes to presidential election mechanisms, term limits, judicial appointments, and electoral administration introduce new complexities and potential uncertainties in the application of constitutional law. Lawyers must be prepared to navigate a framework where executive power appears significantly enhanced, and the avenues for challenging state action may be constrained.

Looking ahead, the implications of this amendment extend beyond Zimbabwe's borders, as highlighted by the criticisms from South African opposition parties. The regional stability and democratic norms in Southern Africa could be impacted by perceived democratic backsliding in Zimbabwe. Practitioners should closely monitor any further legal challenges to the Act, the practical implementation of its provisions, and the responses from regional and international bodies. The ongoing tension between constitutional reform and democratic erosion in Zimbabwe will undoubtedly shape the country's legal and political future, demanding vigilance and adaptive strategies from all stakeholders.