HARARE, Jun. 5 (NewsDay Live) — Opposition politician Nelson Chamisa has dismissed the ongoing parliamentary debate on the controversial Constitutional Amendment Bill No. 3 (CAB 3), arguing that a flawed and compromised process cannot produce a legitimate outcome.
Chamisa’s remarks come as Parliament continues debating the Bill amid growing controversy over allegations that opposition voices are being deliberately sidelined, mirroring concerns raised during the disputed public hearings held across the country in recent months.
Critics say the parliamentary proceedings have resembled the chaotic public consultations, where opponents of the proposed constitutional changes complained they were denied adequate opportunities to express their views.
Parliament this week suspended all other business to focus exclusively on CAB 3, with debate stretching late into the night amid concerns over alleged intimidation of legislators and efforts to marshal support for the proposed amendments.
Throughout the proceedings, opposition MPs repeatedly accused Speaker of Parliament Jacob Mudenda of overlooking legislators seeking to oppose the Bill while allowing ruling Zanu PF lawmakers ample time to contribute.
The debate was also marked by frequent disruptions and heckling from Zanu PF legislators whenever dissenting views were raised.
Keep Reading
- Young vocalist making southern Africa dance
- Business opinion: Branding in the age of entrepreneurship and industrialisation (Part 6)
- Business opinion: Branding in the age of entrepreneurship and industrialisation (Part 6)
- Plot to block Chamisa thickens
Commenting on the developments, Chamisa said Parliament lacked the credibility required to preside over a constitutional process of such national significance.
“You don’t expect credibility from a discredited institution. You can’t expect and hold a promise out of a compromised institution. An illegitimate process cannot produce legitimacy,” Chamisa said.
“The MPs themselves, most of them are contested because of the way they were elected. And there’s a dispute around the election. That tells you that there’s a fundamental problem.”
Chamisa further alleged that some legislators had been compromised through material inducements, making it impossible for them to objectively consider constitutional changes from which they could ultimately benefit.
“There’s been contamination, corruption and pollution of most of our MPs by being given trinkets, money, farms, mines, being promised all sorts of things, vehicles. That contaminates their objectivity,” he said.
Drawing on what he described as a fundamental principle of natural justice, Chamisa argued that legislators and members of the Executive should not be allowed to determine constitutional changes from which they stand to benefit.
“In law, there is what is called the Nemo Judex principle. You can’t be a judge in your own case, particularly where you are meant to benefit. That is the problem with the Executive and the Cabinet, President Emmerson Mnangagwa included. That is also the problem with Parliament. They want to benefit from a process that they are driving,” he said.
Meanwhile, legislators from the Citizens Coalition for Change (CCC) have accused self-imposed secretary-general Sengezo Tshabangu of removing their names from the list of MPs scheduled to debate the Bill, effectively preventing several lawmakers opposed to the amendments from participating in the discussion.
In an interview with NewsDay, Ropafadzo Makumire said he had yet to be afforded an opportunity to contribute to the debate despite repeatedly seeking recognition from the Speaker.
Makumire, one of the most vocal opponents of CAB 3 within Parliament, vowed to continue pressing for a chance to speak.
“Debating continues today (Friday), and I have not yet been afforded the opportunity to speak. But I will continue fighting to get the chance,” he said.
The Constitutional Amendment Bill No. 3 has sparked fierce debate across Zimbabwe, with critics arguing that some of its provisions could weaken constitutional safeguards and concentrate more power in the Executive, while supporters say the amendments are necessary to improve governance and address practical challenges within the country’s constitutional framework.