HARARE – The beleaguered former Citizens Coalition for Change (CCC) leader Nelson Chamisa has triggered a sharp and public fallout with his former opposition allies after declaring that Zimbabwe has “no constitution to defend,” arguing that the supreme law has already been “shredded” by the ruling Zanu-PF.
Chamisa made the remarks as the country debates President Emmerson Mnangagwa’s reported plans to extend his rule beyond constitutional limits to 2030. He dismissed the growing national campaign against the proposal as a mere “sideshow,” insisting that Zimbabwe’s constitutional order has already collapsed under sustained violations by the government.
His comments have drawn fierce criticism from former allies now operating under the Defend the Constitution Platform (DCP), a loose coalition of opposition figures and activists. Prominent members, including Jameson Timba, Tendai Biti, Jacob Ngarivhume and Munyaradzi Gwisayi, described Chamisa’s position as misleading, reckless and politically damaging.
The group argues that Chamisa’s stance undermines ongoing legal and political efforts to resist constitutional amendments that could pave the way for Mnangagwa’s extended rule. According to the DCP, acknowledging the constitution – however battered – as still legally binding is central to challenging Zanu-PF through the courts and civic mobilisation.
The clash comes shortly after Chamisa announced his return to active politics with the launch of “Agenda 2026,” a new political movement he says requires “new wine skins.” He has indicated that the initiative will not rely on old party structures or established figures from the CCC, which he previously led before stepping aside amid internal turmoil.
Former colleagues view Agenda 2026 with deep suspicion, interpreting it as a move that fragments already fragile opposition unity and “gaslights” the public at a time when coordinated resistance is seen as crucial. Critics argue that Chamisa’s rejection of existing platforms weakens collective action against Zanu-PF’s dominance.
At the centre of the dispute is Chamisa’s continued defence of what he calls “strategic ambiguity” – a leadership approach characterised by the absence of formal structures and clearly defined authority. His critics blame this model for the eventual “hijacking” of the CCC by rival factions, most notably through the actions of Sengezo Tshabangu, whose claims to party authority reshaped parliamentary representation.
The tensions have also revived longstanding accusations from within opposition circles that Chamisa may have entered into a covert understanding with Mnangagwa and the state. Some allege he is deliberately dividing the opposition in exchange for personal security, material benefits or financial inducements. Chamisa has repeatedly and vehemently denied these claims, dismissing them as baseless and malicious.
As Zimbabwe edges closer to a potentially consequential constitutional showdown, the growing rift highlights deep strategic and philosophical divisions within the opposition – raising questions about whether it can present a unified front against Zanu-PF’s continued grip on power.
Source – online
