HARARE, Apr. 21 (NewsDay Live) – The Alliance for Community-Based Organisations (ACBOs) has condemned the recently held public hearings on Constitutional Amendment Bill 3, saying the process failed to provide conditions required for meaningful public participation.
ACBOs is a consortium of 41 CBOs operating across eight provinces of Zimbabwe.
In a statement seen by NewsDay, the alliance said the so-called public consultations were characterised by intimidation, with selected participants coached on what to say.
"Although the hearings were formally presented as a national public consultation process, ACBOs found that the democratic quality of participation was deeply uneven. Across multiple venues, participation was shaped by intimidation, gatekeeping, coaching of responses, overcrowding, inaccessible environments, partisan influence, and retaliation linked to speaking, documenting, or dissenting," the statement read.
In an interview with NewsDay, ACBOs coordinator Kudakwashe Munemo said critics fear the proposed constitional changes will erode democratic accountability by weakening the independence of the judiciary, Parliament, and the electoral process.
"The main concern is that this Bill raises serious constitutional and democratic implications for Zimbabwe. Based on what we documented in our observation report, many communities see it as going beyond technical legal amendments; it touches the core of democratic accountability, the separation of powers, citizen participation, gender equality, and constitutional governance. There is a strong fear that it could reduce the people’s power to directly choose and replace leaders," Munemo said.
Keep Reading
He added: "The situation was uneven. Not all participants were well-informed in a free and independent sense. As indicated in our report, the process was characterized by cases of coaching, and those who were coached did not have a sufficient understanding. Some participants may have had some information about the Bill, but the environment in many places did not consistently allow people to engage freely, confidently, and on their own terms. Thus, the hyped high attendance should not automatically be confused with informed and independent participation."
The Election Resource Centre (ERC) noted that while the public hearings demonstrated strong citizen interest in constitutional processes, they did not fully meet constitutional principles or international best practices for participatory law-making.