Exiled Ntabazinduna traditional leader Chief Nhlanhlayamangwe Ndiweni has reignited debate on Zimbabwe’s governance model, calling for a shift from the devolution framework to a federal system, arguing that existing constitutional arrangements remain insufficient to address citizens’ administrative and political needs.
Speaking in a wide-ranging address, Ndiweni said Zimbabwe entered what he described as a “season of constitutional amendments,” insisting that the moment was appropriate to reconsider the structure of the State.
“We have now, in the country, come into the season of constitutional amendments,” he said, adding that this period should be used to “put into legislation” frameworks that respond to evolving governance demands.
A central pillar of his argument is that Zimbabwe’s 2013 Constitution, while it introduces devolution, did not go far enough in transferring power to local communities.
The Constitution, adopted after a nationwide referendum, introduced devolution as a mechanism to decentralise government functions and promote local development.
However, Ndiweni argued that devolution remains largely administrative and does not grant meaningful legislative authority to provinces or regions.
“Devolution did not answer the people’s request,” he said.
“With devolutionary powers, it is difficult for one to legislate within a geographical devolution State various laws.”
- Time running out for SA-based Zimbos
- Sally Mugabe renal unit disappears
- Epworth eyes town status
- Commodity price boom buoys GB
Keep Reading
Instead, he advocated for a federal system, which he said gave regions not only administrative control but also legislative autonomy.
“In a federal system, that is where everything happens,” Ndiweni said, contrasting it with the current model. “It makes governing much easier. People should not be afraid of the word federalism.”
Federalism, unlike devolution, typically involves the sharing of sovereignty between a central government and subnational units, allowing regions to make their own laws in certain areas such as education, health and local governance.
Zimbabwe is a unitary State with devolution introduced as a compromise model in the 2013 Constitution, designed to address long-standing demands for decentralisation, particularly from marginalised provinces.
Ndiweni argued that the current system leaves citizens feeling disconnected from decision-making structures, adding that a federal arrangement brought governance closer to communities while improving accountability.
“It removes the finger of accusation when things do not work properly,” he said.
“People will not be pointing to someone far away saying funds were misused for road construction.”
He further suggested that federalism allows provinces to take full control of key administrative systems, including documentation processes such as birth certificates, identity documents, passports and marriage registration.
“All those things should be done on a federal basis in Bulawayo,” he said. “There should be no need for anyone to go 600 miles up north to Harare.”
His remarks came amid ongoing national conversation about service delivery efficiency, administrative delays and the effectiveness of decentralisation since the introduction of devolution.
He also framed federalism as a practical solution in a modern, technology-driven era, arguing that advances in digital systems make decentralised governance more feasible.
“It is a modern age. We have AI, we have computer systems. We can handle all of those documents,” he said.
However, constitutional and governance experts have previously noted that while devolution under Zimbabwe’s Constitution allows for provincial councils and local decision-making structures, any move towards federalism requires a constitutional overhaul and broad national consensus.
Ndiweni also expanded his argument to broader political theory, claiming that Zimbabwe is composed of “14 nations” defined by language and culture and suggesting that governance should reflect this diversity explicitly.
While such views remain contentious in mainstream constitutional discourse, they continue to surface periodically in debates around identity, governance and the balance of power between central and local authorities.
For now, Zimbabwe remains a unitary State operating under a devolved system, but Ndiweni’s remarks have once again placed federalism back into public conversation — highlighting ongoing tensions between constitutional design, administrative efficiency and demands for deeper political autonomy.
