Dopo l'emendamento costituzionale in Zimbabwe: i diritti dei cittadini di fronte al "crocodillo"

President Emmerson Mnangagwa of Zimbabwe has extended his presidential term beyond 2028, defying earlier assurances that he would step down after his second elected mandate. The constitutional amendment, enacted on July 7, allows the president and parliament to serve seven-year terms instead of five, pushing the next elections from 2028 to 2030. This change also removes direct election of the president, replacing it with parliamentary selection. Activists and civil society groups have expressed alarm over the erosion of democratic freedoms, citing concerns that the move undermines the country’s constitution and its adherence to human rights conventions. The controversy surrounding the amendment intensified after Mnangagwa, who once earned the nickname “Krokodil” due to his political longevity, publicly assured media representatives in February 2025 that he would not remain in office past 2028. He had invited editors of Zimbabwean newspapers to his presidential residence to reaffirm his commitment to constitutional principles and to retire promptly, allowing the ruling Zanu-PF party to determine his successor. However, the recent passage of the Constitutional Amendment Bill No. 3 (CAB3) contradicts these statements, drawing sharp criticism from opposition figures and civil rights organizations. Civil society group Citizen Watch Zimbabwe (CWZ) has highlighted the arrest of Bhekimpilo Mbedzi, chairperson of the National Democratic Working Group (NDWG) in Matabeleland South, following a peaceful protest against the amendment. CWZ President Patience Chard condemned the detention, arguing that it exacerbates fears of state intimidation among citizens who exercise their constitutional rights. She emphasized that peaceful protests should not be criminalized, stressing that the public has the right to express views and hold leaders accountable. Chard warned that such actions undermine trust in democratic institutions and discourage civic participation. The amendment, which received cabinet approval in February and parliamentary endorsement in June, was initially met with widespread public dissent. Religious leaders, retired military officers, legal experts, and civil society groups voiced concerns that the reform weakens Zimbabwe’s constitutional framework. Despite this, supporters argue that the changes operate within the bounds of the existing constitution and ensure continuity at the highest levels of government. The debate over whether Mnangagwa’s continued rule beyond 2028 strengthens or destabilizes the nation remains unresolved, with further discussions likely to follow. Zimbabwe’s constitution guarantees freedom of speech and assembly, as well as compliance with African and international human rights treaties. These protections, however, appear increasingly under threat as the government moves forward with the amendment. Human rights advocates warn that the law could set a dangerous precedent, enabling prolonged executive control and limiting the ability of citizens to challenge authority through legitimate means. The situation reflects broader tensions between governance stability and democratic accountability in the country. As the amendment takes effect, the implications for Zimbabwe’s political landscape remain uncertain. While some see the reform as necessary for maintaining national cohesion, others view it as a regression toward authoritarian practices. The ongoing conflict between different factions highlights the deepening divisions within the nation’s political system. With the next elections scheduled for 2030, the path forward will depend on how these disputes evolve and whether mechanisms for peaceful resolution can be established. For now, the focus remains on the immediate consequences of the constitutional shift and its impact on the lives of ordinary citizens.