THE brutal attack on Lovemore Madhuku and members of the National Constitutional Assembly by suspected State security agents is not merely an attack on individuals — it is an assault on the very spirit of the Constitution they seek to defend.
According to Madhuku, party members had gathered at their offices to map a way forward ahead of debate on Constitutional Amendment Bill No 3, a proposed law that seeks to extend the tenure of President Emmerson Mnangagwa by two years and introduce sweeping changes to the country’s governance architecture.
Central to the controversy are provisions that would transfer the power to elect a president from citizens to Parliament and alter key democratic safeguards without a referendum.
Armed men allegedly stormed the meeting and assaulted attendees. If true, such conduct sends a chilling message to all who dare to question, debate or organise around constitutional reform.
What concerns many observers is that this mirrors a playbook Zimbabwe has witnessed before — silencing dissent through intimidation rather than persuasion.
The bone of contention is not merely the contents of the Bill, but the process: attempts to make far-reaching changes to the supreme law without involving citizens through a plebiscite.
Keep Reading
- NoViolet Bulawayo’s new novel is an instant Zimbabwean classic
- Jah Prayzah, Zanu PF rekindles ‘lost love’
- Bank workers appeal to Ncube for tax relief
- Indosakusa marks 21-year anniversary milestone
An attack on citizens gathered to discuss constitutional amendments can only be read as a suffocation of constitutionalism itself. Coupled with reported denial of police clearance for meetings, it narrows the space for a robust national debate that must accompany any alteration of the founding charter.
A Constitution is not defended with batons or threats. It is defended through dialogue, tolerance of divergent views and unwavering respect for the rule of law.
When those who assemble to scrutinise proposed amendments are allegedly beaten and hospitalised, the issue ceases to be about a Bill before Parliament — it becomes about the shrinking civic space in the country.
Parliament has invited citizens to submit their views via email. That is not enough. Public consultation must include the freedom to assemble, debate openly and mobilise without fear.
Any pattern — whether proven or widely perceived — of abductions, assaults or meeting bans corrodes public trust and taints the legitimacy of the reform process. It fosters the impression of a stage-managed exercise with predetermined outcomes.
Mnangagwa has repeatedly pledged adherence to constitutionalism and the rule of law. Those assurances must be matched by decisive action.
We urge the authorities to launch a thorough investigation into the assault on Madhuku and party members. Silence sends a damaging signal that the government is not prepared to allow open discussion of the proposed constitutional amendments.
Constitutional amendments demand consensus, particularly when driven by leaders who have publicly committed themselves to constitutionalism.
They cannot be midwifed through fear. If the proposed changes are sound and in the national interest, they should withstand scrutiny, criticism and even protest.
Zimbabweans paid dearly for their democratic rights. To assault citizens for exercising their rights is tantamount to assaulting the Constitution itself.
The country once worked hard to shed its “bad boy” tag. A return to that era must never be countenanced — least of all over constitutional amendments that many argue are unnecessary in the first place.