Delegates at the high level gathering passed a motion instructing the government to begin drafting constitutional amendments that would override the current two term presidential limit, which would require Mnangagwa to step down in 2028.

The move, met with applause and support from party loyalists, signals a renewed push by ZANU-PF to consolidate power ahead of what many analysts see as a critical period for Zimbabwe’s political and economic future.

Legal and Political Implications

Zimbabwe’s 2013 Constitution ratified under a power sharing government after a decade of political instability clearly limits presidents to two five year terms. Mnangagwa, who came to power after a military assisted transition in 2017 that ended Robert Mugabe’s 37 year rule, was elected in 2018 and re-elected in 2023.

Legal experts say any change to presidential term limits would require a two thirds majority in Parliament which ZANU-PF currently holds and possibly a public referendum.

A Pattern of Entrenched Power

ZANU-PF has held uninterrupted power since Zimbabwe’s independence in 1980. Mnangagwa, once Mugabe’s close ally and former intelligence chief, has overseen a continued securitization of politics, where military and party elites dominate government functions.

Saturday’s motion echoes past instances in Zimbabwean and African politics where constitutional changes have been used to extend presidential terms a trend seen in countries like Uganda, Rwanda, and more recently, Côte d’Ivoire.

While supporters frame the move as a necessary adjustment to “maintain stability and economic growth,” critics argue it reflects a deeper erosion of democratic norms in a country still grappling with hyperinflation, corruption, and widespread unemployment.

Internal Dissent and Risks

Though the party remains largely unified in public, some insiders have reportedly voiced concerns that pushing a term extension could trigger legal challenges, civic protests, or international condemnation. In 2017, Zimbabweans backed Mnangagwa’s rise in hopes of reform, but opposition figures now accuse him of replicating Mugabe’s autocratic playbook.

“No one should rule forever,” said a senior member of the Citizens Coalition for Change (CCC), Zimbabwe’s main opposition party. “This is not about development. It’s about fear of accountability.”

What Happens Next

The legislative process to amend the Constitution is expected to begin in the coming months. It remains unclear whether a referendum will be held or whether the move will face formal opposition from within ZANU-PF ranks.

Observers warn that the plan, if executed, could set a precedent for future leadership extensions, weakening constitutional safeguards.

During the prime-time address, Biden underscored the need to curb the expansive powers of the presidency, emphasizing that “the president’s power is not unlimited. It’s not absolute. And it shouldn’t be.” This bold declaration comes at a time when the interpretation of presidential immunity is a contentious issue in American politics.

The remarks were a pointed rebuke to the Supreme Court’s ruling earlier this year, in which a 6-3 conservative majority ruled that presidents enjoy near-complete immunity for acts conducted within their official role, and are presumptively immune for other actions carried out while in office. The ruling had been handed down in the context of President-elect Donald Trump’s legal battles, where he argued that he should be immune from prosecution over his efforts to overturn the 2020 election results.

Biden, who had criticized the ruling in the past, reiterated his concerns during his address, warning that the decision left “virtually no limits on what a president can do.” He framed his call for a constitutional amendment as a necessary step to restore the balance of power between the executive and the other branches of government, ensuring that no individual, including the president, is beyond accountability.

The president’s call for an amendment has significant implications for the future of U.S. governance. If such an amendment were to be passed, it would fundamentally alter the legal framework surrounding the presidency, reinforcing the principle that even the most powerful elected official in the country is not exempt from the rule of law.

Biden’s remarks underscore a critical moment in the ongoing debate over the limits of executive power, particularly in light of the recent Supreme Court ruling, which some critics view as an overreach that could undermine democratic checks and balances. The debate over presidential immunity continues to stir intense political discussions, with advocates for greater accountability pushing back against the broad protections granted to presidents.

While Biden’s call for a constitutional amendment may face significant political hurdles, especially given the polarized nature of American politics, it signals a shift in how presidential power might be viewed in the future. As Biden seeks to challenge the ruling, the broader conversation about the scope of presidential authority and the importance of constitutional checks and balances is sure to continue dominating political discourse.