The Constitutional Defenders Forum (CDF) has challenged the four-day public hearings period set aside for the Constitutional Amendment No. 3 Bill (CAB3), arguing that it was insufficient to allow all Zimbabweans a reasonable opportunity to express their views.
The CDF, represented by Tinashe Chinopfukutwa and Kelvin Kabaya of Zimbabwe Lawyers for Human Rights, has written to the Speaker of Parliament seeking an extension of the consultation process.
Following the gazetting of Constitutional Amendment Bill Number 3, HB 1 of 2026, Parliament held public hearings across the country from March 30 to April 2, 2026. However, the CDF says the process was rushed and marred by disruptions, violence, and inadequate venues.
In its petition, the CDF said the hearings failed to meet constitutional standards for meaningful public participation.
“Constitutional Amendment Bill Number 3 seeks to make far-reaching and drastic changes to the Constitution of Zimbabwe, which changes the basic structure of the Constitution of Zimbabwe and the State.
“As a result, and naturally, Amendment Bill Number 3 has therefore attracted intense public interest and debate. However, despite the crucial importance of the Constitutional Amendment Bill Number 3 and the huge public interest it has generated, the public hearings were only conducted over four days across the length and breadth of Zimbabwe.
“Our client contends that the four-day period is inadequate for all Zimbabweans to have been afforded a reasonable opportunity to articulate and express their views regarding Constitutional Amendment Bill Number 3.”
The lawyers further argued that the process was rushed, noting that the consultation period runs for up to 90 days ending in May 2026, and that only one hearing per district was conducted, regardless of population size.
- Sex workers ‘rob’ client
- 2022: The year Mnangagwa entrenched his rule, closed democratic space
- Rights lawyer trial indefinitely postponed
- Harare man sues brick company for US$15k over dog attack
Keep Reading
“It is further argued that the net effect was that views expressed from districts with smaller populations would have greater weight than the views expressed from those with higher populations due to accessibility issues.
“It is our client’s considered view that constituencies contain more or less a similar number of registered voters and therefore the public hearings must have been conducted on a constituency-based basis. In any event, members of the National Assembly are elected per constituency and not per district.”
The CDF also said some venues were too small to accommodate participants, while others were characterised by intimidation and violence.
“Our client further advises that some of the public hearings were characterised by intimidation and violence against citizens who expressed views critical of Constitutional Amendment Number 3.”
Incidents cited include the assault and robbery of Douglas Coltart at Harare City Sports Centre, and violence at Nketa Hall in Bulawayo, where students and a woman were reportedly attacked for expressing critical views.
The lawyers also claimed the hearings appeared biased.
“In Harare, the moderator consciously and deliberately refrained from allowing Douglas Coltart, Tendai Biti, Narshon Kohio, Fadzayi Mahere, Lovemore Madhuku, and others who were seated in the same bay from speaking despite being close to the bay where they were seated on one occasion.”
“In Gweru, Amos Chibaya was heckled and threatened by some youths as soon as he started objecting to the amendment relating to chiefs’ involvement in politics.”
The CDF is now calling on the Speaker of Parliament to reconvene the public hearings and ensure stronger security and broader participation.
