THE release of the joint portfolio and thematic committees’ report on the Constitution of Zimbabwe Amendment (No 3) Bill has done little to strengthen public confidence in a process that has been dogged by controversy from the beginning.
Instead, the figures contained in the report have raised more questions than answers.
According to the report, Parliament received 540 037 written submissions on the proposed constitutional amendments, with 537 102 supporting the Bill and only 2 935 opposing it.
Yet the same report indicates that just 54 231 people attended public hearings conducted across the country.
The sheer scale of the disparity between the number of submissions and the number of participants at public hearings warrants scrutiny.
It naturally invites questions about how such an overwhelming volume of submissions was gathered and whether the process genuinely reflected the free and informed views of citizens.
For months, reports have circulated from various parts of the country alleging that people were mobilised to meetings where signatures were collected in support of Constitution Amendment No 3 Bill.
Some participants reportedly believed they were signing documents linked to development projects or improvement in living conditions rather than expressing support for the controversial constitutional changes.
- Corruption Watch: Get scared, 2023 is coming
- Corruption Watch: Get scared, 2023 is coming
- Letters: Ensuring Africa’s food security through availability of quality seeds
- Is military's involvement in politics compatible with democracy?
Keep Reading
Whether these allegations are ultimately proven or not, the existence of such claims undermines public confidence in a process that should have been transparent, voluntary and beyond reproach.
Constitution making and constitutional amendment processes derive legitimacy not merely from numbers, but from the quality and credibility of citizen participation.
A constitutional amendment is not an ordinary piece of legislation.
It alters the supreme law of the land and, therefore, demands the highest standards of consultation, openness, accountability and probity.
The controversy surrounding Constitution Amendment No 3 Bill has been compounded by concerns about the broader political environment in which the process is unfolding.
Critics argue that the amendments are designed to benefit the political elite rather than strengthen democratic institutions.
What makes these concerns particularly significant is that the Constitution adopted in 2013 was the product of extensive consultations and a national referendum.
It represented a national consensus intended to establish safeguards against concentration of power and to ensure democratic accountability.
Any attempt to amend such a document should, therefore, be subjected to rigorous public scrutiny and debate.
Reports that some Members of Parliament expressed concern for their safety and requested the adjournment of parliamentary proceedings add another troubling dimension.
Parliament should be a place where legislators can freely debate matters of national importance free from fear, intimidation or undue pressure.
A democratic process cannot flourish where fear becomes a factor in decision-making.
The most enduring constitutions are those that command public trust.
That trust is built when citizens believe their voices are heard, their participation is meaningful and their representatives act independently.
As Zimbabwe debates Constitution Amendment No 3 Bill, the focus should not simply be on whether the Bill passes or fails.
The paramount issue is whether the process meets the standards expected of a constitutional democracy.
Constitutions are meant to protect future generations from the excesses of present political interests.
They should never be altered lightly and certainly not under circumstances that leave citizens questioning whether consent was freely given.
The questions surrounding Constitution Amendment No 3 Bill will not disappear simply because a parliamentary report has been tabled.
If anything, the figures contained in it have only deepened the need for transparency, accountability and genuine public engagement.
But then, this is Zanu PF we are dealing with.
Masters of coercion, intimidation, instilling fear, reported electoral theft.
We hoped that President Emmerson Mnangagwa — the self-proclaimed constitutionalist — would adhere to his claims.
Unfortunately he chose to shred the Constitution to pieces all because he wants to retain power.
And he is leaving behind breadcrumbs along his path.
