No, that’s not true, Prof. Ncube: CAB3 is actually the greatest threat to Zimbabwe’s economy

Tendai Ruben Mbofana

The recent promotional material by the Ministry of Finance, led by Professor Mthuli Ncube, attempts to paint Constitutional Amendment (No. 3) Bill, CAB3.  as a visionary masterstroke for economic prosperity. 

If you value my social justice advocacy and writing, please consider a financial contribution to keep it going. Contact me on WhatsApp: +263 715 667 700 or Email: mbofana.tendairuben73@gmail.com

By wrapping a nakedly political maneuver in the sterile language of “policy stability” and “investor confidence,” the government is engaging in a dangerous form of economic gaslighting. 

The central thesis of their argument—that lengthening presidential terms and concentrating power is a prerequisite for industrialization—is not only intellectually dishonest but economically illiterate. 

In reality, CAB3 represents the single greatest threat to Zimbabwe’s long-term fiscal health and international standing, as it systematically dismantles the very institutional guardrails that modern investors actually value.

The Minister’s claim that five-year terms are a hindrance to development is flatly contradicted by global reality. 

The world’s most prosperous and stable economies—from the United States and Germany to regional success stories like Mauritius and Botswana—have thrived on four or five-year cycles. 

In these nations, economic growth is not tied to the longevity of a single person, but to the permanence of the system. 

Investors flock to these countries because they know that even if the government changes, the laws, property rights, and judicial independence remain untouched. 

By arguing that Zimbabwe needs seven years to see projects to fruition, the government is essentially confessing that its policies are so fragile they cannot survive a democratic audit. 

If a policy is sound, it should withstand the scrutiny of an election; if it requires the suspension of democratic norms to “succeed,” it is likely flawed or exploitative.

True “investor confidence” is a product of the Rule of Law, not the “Rule of One.” 

When a country moves to extend terms and shift the election of a president to a parliamentary selection, it signals to the global market that the supreme law is a flexible document subject to the whims of the incumbent. 

This creates massive political risk. 

For an investor committing hundreds of millions of dollars, the sight of a government rewriting the rules mid-stream is the ultimate warning sign. 

It suggests that if the Constitution can be altered to secure political tenure, then investment contracts, tax laws, and land titles are equally vulnerable to arbitrary change. 

This is why countries with short, rigid terms and frequent, peaceful transitions often enjoy lower borrowing costs and higher foreign direct investment. 

They offer the stability of a predictable system, whereas CAB3 offers only the temporary “certainty” of an individual, which is inherently volatile.

Furthermore, the claim that CAB3 will lead to “institutional efficiency” is a euphemism for the erosion of accountability. 

The bill’s push to allow the Executive to appoint more Senators and bypass public interviews for judges does not streamline the economy; it creates a fertile ground for cronyism and the “Zvigananda” (tenderpreneurs). 

When the executive branch holds total sway over the legislature and the judiciary, the competitive bidding and oversight mechanisms that prevent the looting of state coffers vanish. 

An economy where success depends on political proximity rather than innovation is an economy destined for stagnation. 

We have already seen how “fast decision-making” without accountability has led to catastrophic currency failures; doubling down on this centralized model through constitutional change is a recipe for further macroeconomic ruin.

The real reasons economies grow—transparency, a skilled workforce, low corruption, and independent courts—are all undermined by CAB3. 

In Botswana, for example, economic success was built on a foundation of strict adherence to term limits and a culture of institutional continuity that exists independent of who sits in the State House. 

By contrast, CAB3 seeks to solve a non-existent problem of “term length” while ignoring the actual crises of corruption and policy inconsistency that truly drive away capital. 

If the Ministry of Finance were truly concerned about transformation, it would be advocating for the independence of the central bank and the transparency of mining contracts, not the mutilation of the 2013 Constitution.

The government’s rhetoric also ignores the human cost of “stability” achieved through exclusion. 

True growth requires a social contract—a belief that the system is fair. 

The parliamentary public hearings on CAB3, marred by intimidation, show that this bill is being forced upon a skeptical public. 

When a government alienates its own population to secure the longevity of its administration, it sows the seeds of social unrest, which is a far greater deterrent to growth than any five-year election cycle. 

We must reject the false choice between democracy and development. 

Zimbabwe deserves both, and CAB3 delivers neither. 

It is a political project masquerading as a developmental one, and for the sake of our economic future, it must be named for what it is: a move toward a command-state that history proves will only lead to further isolation and poverty.

• Tendai Ruben Mbofana is a social justice advocate and writer. To directly receive his articles please join his WhatsApp Channel on: https://whatsapp.com/channel/0029VaqprWCIyPtRnKpkHe08