by Gideon Madzikatidze
HARARE – A pro-ED2030 lobby, Padare Ekhundleni, has launched a scathing constitutional rebuttal to activist Rutendo Matinyarare’s viral video analysis on Zanu-PF succession and Constitution Amendment Act No.3 (CAA3), branding his claims constitutionally baseless.
Matinyarare, in the video shared on Facebook, argued that CAA3 – signed into law this year (2026) is the centrepiece of a succession strategy involving businessman Kuda Tagwirei, global interests and the military establishment. He further claimed the Defence Forces would prefer an organised transition and predictable succession and that disrespectful businesspeople were creating conditions for ‘a 2017’ – a reference to the November 2017 military intervention.
Padare Ekhundleni, posting under the tag “The Art of War,” said the assertions amount to treating generals as political brokers, which the 2013 Constitution explicitly forbids.
“Matinyarare’s claims are not pragmatic realism; they are constitutional heresy. The 2013 Constitution is the supreme law (section 2) and binds the Defence Forces,” the platform said.
It cited Section 211(3), which requires the military to be non-partisan, national, patriotic, professional and subordinate to civilian authority; Section 208, which forbids security services from acting in a partisan manner or furthering any political party; Section 212, which limits the Defence Forces to protecting Zimbabwe and upholding the Constitution; and Section 213, which permits deployment only by the President as Commander-in-Chief.
“There is therefore no constitutional space for the army to ‘prefer’ an organised transition or ‘predictable succession,’ still less to signal that businesspeople are creating conditions for ‘a 2017’,” Padare Ekhundeni wrote.
“A military view on political succession is not reassuring; it is precisely the partisan conduct that section 208 prohibits. Not staging a coup is not a favour to democracy, it is a legal dut,” Padare added.
The rebuttal comes as CAA3 faces a decisive constitutional test. The full Constitutional Court will hear five challenges on 11 and 25 November.
On 11 November, Vhurande Mahlupeko versus Parliament (CCZ277/26) – challenging the Act on grounds that 10 provisions were not gazetted for the 90-day consultation and Prince Dubeko Sibanda versus Parliament (CCZ271/26) – invoking Section 328(7) which bars term extensions benefiting incumbents – will be heard.
On 25 November, the MDC challenge, which argues that ending direct election of the President under Section 92 requires a referendum under Section 328(6), will be heard, alongside a public-interest case by six war veterans seeking a complete reversal of CAA3.
CAA3 ends direct presidential election, creates an electoral college of Senate and National Assembly, extends presidential and parliamentary terms from five to seven years moving the next election from 2028 to 2030, and creates 10 presidential-appointed Senate seats.
Padare Ekhundleni argued that Matinyarare’s framing of 2017 as a template for ‘organised transition’ suggests the Constitution may be suspended when elites are inconvenienced, and that converting criticism by businesspeople into a coup threat chills protected expression.
“If businesspeople corruptly capture institutions, the remedy is investigation, prosecution and accountability under the law, not barracks politics,” it said.
It added that under Section 167, the Constitutional Court is the supreme guardian of constitutional order, not a political stabiliser, and must declare invalid any conduct violating Sections 208, 211 and 213.
“Matinyarare’s claims fail because they treat the military as a political arbiter, 2017 as precedent, and the Court as a crisis manager. The Constitution requires civilian supremacy, military neutrality, legal accountability for all actors, and judges who enforce the supreme law without fear,” Padare Ekhundeni said.