taurayi chiwara

[taurayi chiwara @ChiwaraTa]

@eveline1044 9

[taurayi chiwara @ChiwaraTa]

@x_archiveHQ ABS not showing

[taurayi chiwara @ChiwaraTa]

@x_archiveHQ Low fuel and handbrake on not correct

[taurayi chiwara @ChiwaraTa]

@China_TVv Oh yes,it would be a great learning opportunity.

[MaZwangendaba @mamakaCleo]

Good afternoon citizens. My heart is bleeding. There is a sister who is mentally unwell in Bulawayo CBD. I've seen her four times now. I noticed that her hand is swollen and its only today that I took a closer look. Apparently she has a plaster on her arm. Seems it is overdue to be removed or something. I also noticed that its attracting flies meaning its an infection.
So I was wondering if there are any doctors and well_wishers who are able to assist this lady. How much is consultation, some medication maybe and to see what's needed. Maybe we can crowd fund so that she gets help.

What saddens me is that we don't have social welfare that assists the vulnerable, the disabled, the mentally ill, orphans and the old age. Its breaks my heart that our government is busy with Constitution ammendment, buying of the state of the art cars when there is no social security.
What kind of a society are we when we neglect our people like this? How many others are there out there facing the same predicament?

Please to any doctor seeing this please reach out to me. Then we will take it from there to make sure our sister gets help. She is always by Bulawayo centre or by Farm and city next to Haddon and sly.

My DM is open. Let's lend a hand to those who can not help themselves. God bless.

[taurayi chiwara @ChiwaraTa]

@TheCleanCarClub 87

[taurayi chiwara @ChiwaraTa]

@ideashome0 Can l please the detailed plan of this house,l like it, will settle for this one. From ground to roof.

[taurayi chiwara @ChiwaraTa]

@MidnightMuse___ @PhilosophyMonk Cool

[THE OPPRESSED @BorisCde]

Let’s make him trend! You cannot commit crime in this era and walk away with it!

[Gerrard Anko Ged Belts @MacBelts]

Out now in your nearest music store

[The Mayor @themayor_ke]

The saddest thing I have seen on the Internet today

[taurayi chiwara @ChiwaraTa]

Do you remember when you joined X? I do! #MyXAnniversary

[taurayi chiwara @ChiwaraTa]

@Wisdom_HQ 10

[taurayi chiwara @ChiwaraTa]

@Wisdom_HQ A

[Hopewell Chin’ono @daddyhope]

When legal scholar Dr Justice Mavedzenge retorted, during his constitutional debate with political scientist Prof Jonathan Moyo, that Zimbabwe’s Justice Minister, Ziyambi Ziyambi, has never practised law, what is in the attached Herald article is what he was referring to. A Justice Minister devoid of the ability to understand the Constitution he is supposed to guard and uphold.

Zimbabwe’s Justice Minister, Ziyambi Ziyambi, has gone ahistorical, insulting Zimbabweans, including the country’s freedom fighters, by claiming that the liberation war was not about one man, one vote, but merely about land restoration rights. Such a claim distorts the historical record and reduces a broad liberation struggle for political rights and majority rule to a single issue.

He advances this intellectual propaganda drivel to defend taking away the direct vote to elect a president from citizens, as espoused in his Constitutional Amendment Bill No. 3. It shows that he has never read liberation war literature, which consistently emphasised one man one vote as a central pillar of the liberation struggle.

Zimbabweans did not go to war merely for land in isolation, they went to war for majority rule, for universal adult suffrage, for one man, one vote. That principle was entrenched in liberation literature, which articulated the clarion call for equal voting rights to justify the struggle that eventually ended minority.

Land without political power would have been meaningless. The liberation struggle was about giving black Zimbabweans the authority to choose who governs them, and through that democratic power to determine land policy and every other national question.

For the avoidance of doubt, I attach a video below of Robert Mugabe explicitly stating that the liberation struggle was about one man, one vote. This was in 1962.

Ziyambia also argues, ridiculously, that you do not need a referendum to extend President Emmerson Mnangagwa’s tenure of office.

Ziyambi confirms Mavedzenge’s assertion that he has never practised law, because one cannot separate the length of an election cycle from Presidential term limits as if they exist in different constitutional universes. They are inseparable, and only a bush lawyer would argue otherwise. The moment you extend an election cycle from five to seven years, you are automatically extending the tenure of the sitting President.

This is first-year law degree material, and any serious student of constitutional law would understand that altering the duration of a term inevitably affects the term limit framework itself.
That is not a neutral administrative adjustment, it is a substantive alteration to how long executive power is held.

Section 91(2) of Zimbabwe’s constitution does not operate in a vacuum. It defines how many terms a President may serve, but the Constitution also defines how long each term is. If you stretch the duration of a term, you are materially affecting the term limit framework.
You are extending the time a President holds office beyond what voters originally authorised under the existing constitutional order when they cast their vote.

This is precisely why Section 328 was crafted with safeguards. It was meant to prevent incumbents from manipulating constitutional provisions, directly or indirectly, to prolong their stay in power. Whether you change the number of terms or the length of each term, the democratic effect is identical, you extend Presidential tenure. How a Minister of Justice fails to grasp that is astonishing.

To argue that extending an election cycle does not touch term limits is like arguing that increasing the length of a school year does not affect how long pupils stay in school. It is a distinction without a difference.

The 2007 harmonisation argument, which Ziyambi uses in a feeble attempt to defend an illegal constitutional mutilation, is also wildly misplaced. The 2007 adjustment aligned electoral calendars within an already existing constitutional framework.
It did not extend the tenure of an incumbent President beyond the mandate voters had already given. There is a qualitative constitutional difference between administrative alignment and tenure extension. It is plain common sense, even before one applies constitutional law analysis.

The claim that Ziyambi makes that even extending term limits to three terms would not require a referendum is equally alarming and legally outrageous. Section 328 was specifically designed to stop incumbency advantage and self-serving amendments.

Any change that affects how long a President can remain in office, whether by number of terms or by their duration, triggers constitutional safeguards, including a referendum, especially where it benefits a sitting office holder like in this instance.

Ziyambi’s attempt to anchor this in the so-called Vision 2030 or Covid-19 disruptions is empty political rhetoric, not constitutional law. Development agendas do not override constitutional protections. If anything, constitutionalism exists precisely to restrain power during moments when governments claim necessity to do so.

The whole world knows that this minister, and other deeply corrupt and politically opportunistic elements working with him attempting to push these amendments illegally, are relying on a captured judiciary to pronounce on these issues through the same ridiculous lenses they are using to wrongly interpret the Constitution.

That may well happen, but it renders the entire exercise illegitimate and unlawful, and it will ultimately be reversed, if they are able to force it through and attempt to implement it. The whole world is watching, and this may well become someone’s Waterloo if they are not careful.

Also, for the avoidance of doubt, I place below a video of former ZANUPF Legal Secretary Patrick Chinamasa explicitly stating that the proposed changes require two referendums. He said this in front of President Emmerson Mnangagwa at a ZANUPF Annual Conference, and there was no objection to what he said. He was speaking in his capacity as ZANUPF Legal Secretary.

ZANUPF and its leadership continue to be a laughing stock as they try to navigate a factional fight by attempting to strip and mutilate the Constitution to resolve internal power struggles. Unfortunately, it is not only ZANUPF that is becoming a laughing stock. Our country itself is becoming one, as the rest of the continent and the world watch a Justice Minister and a group of leaders publicly contradict their own Constitution. This simply exposes the depth of incompetence.

Even where the intention is manipulative and corrupt, dictators elsewhere attempt such manoeuvres with a degree of legal sophistication. But here, we are being led by a regime full of people who do not even understand the Constitution upon which their authority is supposed to rest. They do not grasp the implications of what they are attempting to do.

What serious investor would commit capital to a country where the judiciary pronounces itself in ways that are contrary to the Constitution, the supreme law of the land? It is absolutely ridiculous. We have people who are supposed to be educated publicly ridiculing themselves by articulating positions that are plainly inconsistent with the Constitution, yet insisting that this is what the Constitution provides.

It is astonishing to witness how money and power can erode individuals to the point where they are prepared to destroy anything associated with their professional standing, whether intellectually, as scholars, or as lawyers. It is deeply embarrassing to watch this kind of constitutional drama unfolding in 2026.

Imagine the level of shamelessness required for the Justice Minister of a republic born out of a war of independence to come out and claim that the republic was born out of a fight that had nothing to do with one man, one vote, that it was merely about land. In other words, he is suggesting that Zimbabweans who do not have land are not yet independent?

Is he also implying that those of us without land are not independent? What, then, was the struggle for if it was only about land, which many citizens still do not possess? It would mean that only those who received land are the ones enjoying independence.

He does not seem to realise the Pandora’s box he is opening with such shameless and anti-intellectual statements as Justice Minister of a country whose independence came through a protracted liberation struggle in which blood was spilled and thousands of Zimbabweans were killed fighting for one man, one vote. That position was articulated repeatedly, and it exists on record and on video.

Now, in an attempt to resolve a factional fight, ZANUPF appears willing to walk back the very historical foundations of the liberation struggle.

I never imagined I would live to see the day when a ZANUPF minister would shame not only himself, his party, and his President, but also embarrass the broader Pan-African community by claiming that Zimbabwe’s independence struggle had nothing to do with one man, one vote.

By that logic, if Ian Smith had simply given Africans access to land, the war would have ended there. That is the dangerous and ignominious implication of what this minister is now advancing.

[Mbuyiseni Ndlozi @MbuyiseniNdlozi]

This is strong 🔥 [Must Watch]

[🅽🆈🅰🆂🅷🅰 @NNyashaYessur]

This was the guy who was last seen with Asanda Charisma Ndhlovu the missing baby.
Let Twitter detectives do their thing and let's find this criminal

[Hopewell Chin’ono @daddyhope]

I urge all Zimbabweans on Twitter to tweet this anticorruption petition link to reach more people.

We need only 30,000 signatures by 12 midnight so that it can be submitted to the United Nations.

This is the least every citizen can do for their country.
https://t.co/pAr0o3uWpg

[taurayi chiwara @ChiwaraTa]

@Eloncommentary1 40