CONSTITUTIONS are not ordinary Acts of Parliament.
They are the supreme law of the land, carefully crafted to protect citizens from the excesses of those who wield political power.
They define how authority is exercised, how rights are protected and how government institutions relate to one another.
That is why any amendment to the Constitution demands the highest levels of diligence, transparency and public participation.
It is against this background that the numerous errors identified in Constitution Amendment No. 3 Bill (CAB 3) should deeply concern every Zimbabwean, regardless of political affiliation.
Legal watchdog Veritas has pointed to several drafting errors in the Bill, describing them as evidence of a rushed legislative process.
Keep Reading
- ED’s influence will take generations to erase
- ‘Govt spineless on wetland land barons’
- Govt under attack over banks lending ban
- Zim Constitution must be amended
Whether these are technical mistakes or substantive flaws is almost beside the point.
The very existence of such errors in legislation designed to amend the country’s supreme law raises troubling questions about the seriousness with which the process has been handled.
If a Bill seeking to amend the Constitution can be presented with avoidable drafting mistakes, what confidence should citizens have that every clause has been properly scrutinised?
What other unintended consequences could emerge after it becomes law?
Constitution-making is not an exercise in political expediency.
It is a process that demands patience, precision and broad national consensus.
Zimbabwe should have learnt this lesson long ago.
The 2013 Constitution was the product of years of negotiations, consultations and public outreach under the Constitution Parliamentary Committee (COPAC).
Although not everyone agreed with every provision, the process recognised that constitutional reform requires extensive engagement because its effects last for generations.
CAB 3 appears to have travelled a very different path.
The debate surrounding the Bill has been dominated by controversy rather than consensus.
Lawyers, constitutional experts, civil society organisations and opposition parties have raised concerns about several of its provisions and the speed with which it has moved through Parliament.
Instead of building public confidence, the process has fuelled suspicion and deepened political divisions.
This is not how constitutional democracy should function.
Zimbabwe has paid a heavy price before for hurried or poorly implemented policy decisions.
The chaotic introduction and later abandonment of the Zimbabwe dollar in different forms, abrupt policy reversals affecting businesses and investors, and inconsistencies in the application of various laws have all demonstrated the cost of inadequate planning and consultation.
While those examples involve policy rather than constitutional law, they illustrate a broader lesson: decisions taken in haste often produce consequences that take years to correct.
The Constitution deserves even greater care because correcting constitutional mistakes is far more difficult than amending ordinary legislation.
The supreme law must never become a document that is repeatedly altered to satisfy immediate political objectives or short-term interests.
Frequent amendments weaken constitutional certainty, discourage investor confidence and erode public trust in democratic institutions.
More importantly, every constitutional amendment should answer one fundamental question: How does this improve the lives of ordinary Zimbabweans?
Will it create jobs?
Will it improve hospitals?
Will it ensure reliable water supplies?
Will it strengthen schools or reduce poverty?
If citizens cannot clearly see how constitutional changes address their daily struggles, then lawmakers must do a far better job of explaining both the necessity and the urgency of those amendments.
So far, CAB 3 has largely been about extending President Emmerson Mnangagwa’s tenure for “continuity of his projects”.
How lame an excuse.
Zimbabwe’s greatest constitutional need today is not speed, but credibility.
The country’s lawmakers have both a legal and moral duty to ensure that every amendment to the Constitution is technically sound, publicly justified and subjected to rigorous scrutiny.
Anything less risks undermining the very document they are sworn to uphold.
A Constitution should be remembered for its wisdom, stability and legitimacy — not for the drafting errors that accompanied its amendment.