UK Lords Sound Alarm Over Zimbabwe ‘Power Grab’

A fierce debate erupted in the House of Lords on Wednesday as peers condemned plans to amend Zimbabwe Constitution in ways critics say entrenches President Emmerson Mnangagwa’s grip on power and dismantle key democratic safeguards.

The row centred on reports that proposed constitutional changes would pave the way for President Mnangagwa to extend his term despite current limits while transferring presidential elections away from the people and into parliament.

Raising the issue in Parliament, Baroness Hoey demanded to know what discussions the British government had held with Harare over what she described as a deeply anti-democratic move.

Responding for the government, Lord Lemos confirmed that UK officials including the British ambassador had raised concerns directly with senior Zimbabwean officials only yesterday (Tuesday).

But he said constitutional amendments were ultimately “a sovereign legislative matter for Zimbabwe”.

That cautious language drew sharp criticism across the chamber.

Baroness Hoey launched a blistering attack accusing Zimbabwe’s ruling ZANU-PF party of brutality, torture, imprisonment of opposition figures and using “corrupt political processes” to remain in power.

She warned that the changes would mean Zimbabweans would no longer directly elect their president while weakening judicial independence and eliminating democratic accountability.

Calling for a tougher British response, she asked whether it was time for a “radical reappraisal” of UK engagement with southern African institutions and governments that had failed to defend democratic standards.

Lord Lemos acknowledged serious concerns citing a report from Zimbabwe’s own Human Rights Commission which found public consultations on the constitutional changes had been tightly controlled with little room for dissenting voices, civil society or the media.

But he rejected calls for louder public condemnation saying two decades of what he termed “megaphone diplomacy” had failed to deliver results.

Instead, he said the government now preferred direct engagement behind closed doors.

That explanation appeared to do little to calm critics.

Lord Callanan accused ministers of offering “lots of consultation” and “listening carefully” while failing to condemn measures he said were “profoundly undemocratic”.

Lord Lemos hit back angrily saying his remarks had been misrepresented and insisting Britain had repeatedly raised concerns with Harare.

Other peers broadened the criticism.

Lord Bruce of Bennachie said ZANU-PF’s justification that extending presidential terms would save money and reduce violence was proof of “utter contempt for democracy”.

Lord Howell of Guildford suggested Zimbabwe’s hopes of rejoining the Commonwealth would be strengthened if Mnangagwa stood down after two terms rather than pursue indefinite rule.

The Bishop of Southwark cited calls from the Zimbabwe Council of Churches for the bill to be withdrawn or amended, describing Zimbabwe’s people as “wonderful” but “poorly served by those currently in power”.

The most explosive intervention came from Lord Hain, who alleged that criminality lay “at the heart of the state”, with corruption linked to gold and tobacco smuggling.

Lord Lemos acknowledged corruption remained a serious issue but said Zimbabwe had made economic reforms and signed an IMF staff-monitored programme, steps he said had improved stability compared with the Mugabe era.

Yet for many in the chamber, economics was not the point.

Yesterday’s debate laid bare growing unease in Westminster that while Zimbabwe seeks international legitimacy, debt relief and a return to the Commonwealth it may be moving in the opposite direction politically.