Source: Backlash over ED’s CAB 3 consensus claim -Newsday Zimbabwe
PRESIDENT Emmerson Mnangagwa’s claim that the Constitution of Zimbabwe Amendment No. 3 Act was forged through “collective wisdom” has ignited a fresh political battle, with Zanu PF insiders alleging the reforms were faction-driven, deepening succession tensions and exposing fractures within the ruling party.
The allegations, supported by political commentators and party sources, have exposed deepening fault lines within Zanu PF over succession, party unity and the legitimacy of the constitutional changes. They also challenge the government’s position that the legislation reflected broad consensus rather than competing factional interests.
In an interview with The Sunday Mail, Mnangagwa insisted that the amendments represented “collective evolution,” saying he carried “Cabinet and the country” with him in every decision.
The President last week signed Constitution Amendment No. 3 Bill (CAB 3) into law after it sailed through Parliament.
The far-reaching reforms extend the tenure of the President, legislators and councillors from five to seven years. The amendments also provide for the election of the President by Parliament.
However, senior figures within Zanu PF have painted a different picture of how the reforms were conceived and passed.
A senior Zanu PF source, speaking on condition of anonymity, told NewsDay that Mnangagwa’s account was a distortion of events.
“CAB 3 was never a collective decision,” the source said.
“It was driven by a small faction around the President and imposed on the rest of the party through threats, inducements and brute parliamentary arithmetic.”
The insider pointed to Zanu PF’s lack of sufficient numbers in the Senate to pass the amendment independently, arguing that the party relied on opposition legislators aligned to Sengezo Tshabangu to secure the required two-thirds majority.
“How can something be a collective decision when your own party cannot muster the votes without opposition help?” the source asked.
Several retired senior military commanders have publicly opposed the amendments, while party insiders warn that the CAB 3 debate has exposed deeper succession tensions within Zanu PF.
One political observer said the process had revealed serious factional divisions within the ruling party.
“The CAB 3 debate has exposed serious infighting and factionalism in the party, with cash and vehicle donations playing a significant role in swaying support,” the observer said.
Another source close to the party leadership predicted further instability.
“There is no doubt there will be a rupture in Zanu-PF, whether instigated by the Vice-President Constantino Chiwenga faction or the Mnangagwa faction,” the source said.
The insider further alleged that party members who opposed the Bill faced threats of disciplinary action and possible expulsion.
Masvingo Provincial Affairs and Devolution Minister Ezra Chadzamira previously warned that Zanu PF members opposing the constitutional amendment “will regret it once the amendment process is wrapped up”.
“That is not how you treat colleagues in a collective decision,” the source said. “That is how you treat enemies. The President cannot claim collective wisdom when his own allies are threatening to purge those who disagree.”
The Zanu PF insider also rejected Mnangagwa’s claim that CAB 3 represented national consensus, arguing that Zimbabweans were denied an opportunity to vote on the changes through a referendum.
“Where is the collective in denying 14 million Zimbabweans a voice?”A Constitution belongs to the people. It is neither the private property of Parliament nor the personal instrument of an incumbent President.”
Australia-based political commentator Reason Wafawarova said the appearance of unity around CAB 3 had been manufactured through coercion rather than genuine agreement.
“Zimbabwe’s political establishment may publicly appear united behind Constitutional Amendment No. 3 Act, but beneath the official slogans lies perhaps the country’s worst-kept secret: the overwhelming majority of the political establishment does not genuinely support the project,” Wafawarova said.
He described the amendments as unpopular, “constitutional vandalism,” “political trickery,” and “an imposition” that would struggle to survive a referendum.
Wafawarova also challenged the argument that parliamentary approval automatically granted legitimacy to the reforms.
“Procedure and legitimacy are not the same thing,” he said.
“Apartheid had procedures. UDI [Unilateral Declaration of Independence] had procedures. One-party States had procedures. Parliament voting for something does not automatically make it legitimate, nor does it necessarily make it constitutional.”
“The real issue is why Parliament became a substitute for the people.”
Commenting on reports of pressure against CAB 3 critics, Wafawarova said attempts to silence opposition reflected political insecurity.
“Victimisation of CAB 3 critics is a confession of fear,” he said.
Wafawarova argued that the amendments primarily served political interests rather than addressing citizens’ concerns.
“CAB 3 is structural political engineering, not a public welfare or economic development programme,” hesaid.
“There is nothing in CAB 3 for ordinary Zanu PF supporters. It is legislation by the elite and for the elite.”
COMMENTS