Public hearings on the Constitutional Amendment No 3 Bill (CAB3) began yesterday across the country to gather citizens’ views on proposed changes to the supreme law.
The Bill seeks to extend the tenure of the President, Members of Parliament and councillors from five years to seven. It also proposes giving Parliament the power to elect the President — effectively taking away a right Zimbabweans fought hard to secure during the liberation struggle.
Against sound counsel that such sweeping constitutional changes require the explicit consent of citizens through a referendum, the promoters of the Bill appear determined to push ahead regardless.
The hearings, scheduled to run until April 2, risk becoming little more than a procedural formality.
First, the structure of the consultations raises serious questions. Only one hearing per district will be held, lasting just three hours. This stands in stark contrast to the process that produced the 2013 Constitution under the COPAC programme, which involved three consecutive meetings in each ward. That process allowed citizens to debate, reflect and submit considered views.
The current arrangement does the opposite. With just a few hours allocated per district, hundreds — sometimes thousands — of residents are expected to compress their views into an extremely limited time frame. Inevitably, many will not be heard.
Keep Reading
- Biti concludes ConCourt application
- Biti alleges ‘powerful forces’ after him
- Biti reported to Law Society
- Editorial Comment: Chiri audits must trigger action
In rural districts where communities are geographically dispersed, citizens must travel long distances to attend the hearings — a logistical burden that effectively excludes many people, particularly the elderly, women and those with limited resources.
Second, the hearings appear to be taking place without adequate civic education. Constitutional amendments are complex legal matters that require citizens to understand what is being proposed and the implications of the changes. Without proper information, the public hearings risk becoming a symbolic exercise where participants speak without a full grasp of the substance of the Bill.
This concern is amplified by reports that civil society organisations have struggled to obtain police clearance to hold meetings aimed at explaining the Bill to citizens. Meanwhile, Zanu PF has reportedly been given free rein to convene gatherings where participants are coached on what to say during the hearings under the guise of civic education.
Such an uneven playing field undermines the credibility of the entire consultative process.
Third, the environment surrounding the hearings has been marked by allegations of intimidation and harassment of dissenting voices, both within and outside the ruling party.
Those opposing the Bill say they have faced outright hostility. Constitutional lawyer and National Constitutional Assembly leader Lovemore Madhuku and his party members were assaulted at their offices last month. Constitutional Defenders Forum leader Tendai Biti is out on bail following his arrest at a meeting in Mutare about two weeks ago.
Such incidents send a chilling message to citizens who may wish to express views contrary to those of the ruling establishment. Genuine public participation cannot take place in an atmosphere of fear or intimidation.
There are also reports that civil servants and ordinary citizens have been given forms to complete in support of the proposed amendments. Allegations of vote-buying have surfaced as well, with claims that Zanu PF distributed hampers and bicycles ahead of the public hearings.
These reports further compromise the integrity of the process. Public consultations are meant to capture genuine views — not manufacture consent through pressure or inducement.
The logical step would have been for Parliament to set aside the current process and allow Zimbabweans to express their will through a free and credible national vote. A referendum provides the clearest and most legitimate measure of public opinion on such fundamental changes to the Constitution.
Anything less risks turning what should be a democratic consultation into a predetermined outcome.
What is unfolding amounts to nothing more than a delayed match — one in which the outcome appears to have been decided long before the whistle was blown.