No Constitution To Defend ||The Truth Behind Chamisa’s Statement

Описание: Zimbabwe is in uproar after Nelson Chamisa said there is “no constitution to defend.” Critics rushed to label it hypocrisy. But is that what he meant?

In this Zimwaves TV analysis, we unpack the deeper constitutional tension behind that statement — and why repeated constitutional amendments, from the removal of the running mate clause to changes in judicial age limits, have reshaped how Zimbabweans view constitutional supremacy.

Is the Constitution of Zimbabwe (2013) still functioning as supreme law — or has it become flexible whenever political power finds it inconvenient?

This is not about semantics.
This is about power.
This is about constitutional permanence.
This is about whether the will of the people can be amended without the people.

We break down:

• What Chamisa meant when he said “there is no constitution”
• Why critics may be misrepresenting the statement
• The history of constitutional amendments in Zimbabwe
• The age limit amendment controversy
• The removal of the running mate clause
• What constitutional supremacy really means
• Whether amendments weaken public trust
• Why defending the Constitution now is not a contradiction

This conversation matters beyond party politics.
It goes to the heart of governance, institutional integrity, and Zimbabwe’s democratic future.

📢 Do you believe Zimbabwe’s Constitution is still supreme?
Comment below and join the discussion.

👉 Subscribe to Zimwaves TV for fearless constitutional analysis, political accountability, and governance breakdowns you won’t find elsewhere
#NelsonChamisa #ZimbabweConstitution #ZANUPF #ZimbabwePolitics #ConstitutionalCrisis #AmendmentBill2026 #ZimbabweNews #ZimwavesTV #DemocracyDebate #Governance