The proposed Constitution of Zimbabwe Amendment Bill (No. 3) has ignited a firestorm of controversy, with critics condemning it as a brazen power grab that undermines democracy, the rule of law, and the will of the Zimbabwean people. The bill, which seeks to extend President Emmerson Mnangagwa's term until 2030 and introduce a host of other sweeping changes, has been met with widespread opposition from civil society, legal experts, opposition parties, and even some influential figures within the establishment.
Here is an overview of the key criticisms levelled against the bill:
A Constitutional Coup or Democratic Process?
The core of the criticism is that the amendment process is illegitimate and represents an attack on the foundational principles of the 2013 Constitution.
⦁ Bypassing a Referendum: The 2013 Constitution, which was overwhelmingly approved by the people in a referendum, is the supreme law of the land. Many legal experts and civic groups, including the Zimbabwe Lawyers for Human Rights (ZLHR), argue that any change extending a presidential term is a fundamental alteration that must be returned to the people for final approval in a referendum. The government's insistence that only Parliament, where the ruling ZANU-PF party holds a majority, can amend the charter is seen as an attempt to sidestep public opinion.
⦁ "Small Group of Legislators": A group of retired generals and war veterans, who played a pivotal role in the 2017 military-assisted transition, have strongly objected to the bill. In a rare show of dissent, they warned against allowing a "small group of legislators" to unilaterally alter fundamental national principles and labelled the move a "constitutional coup”.
Erosion of Democratic Pillars
Critics argue that the bill's provisions systematically dismantle key democratic institutions and concentrate power in the hands of the executive.
- Byo author eyes SA award
- Sables’ big night…face tricky tie against Ivory Coast
- Sables Trust assures stakeholders
- US$200K armed robber in court
Keep Reading
⦁ Abolishing Direct Elections: One of the most drastic changes is the proposal to abolish direct presidential elections. Instead, the president would be elected by Members of Parliament, a body currently dominated by ZANU-PF. This would effectively sever the direct link between the people and their choice for the country's highest office.
⦁ Judicial Independence Under Threat: The bill proposes that all judges, from the Chief Justice downwards, be appointed by the President alone after "consultation" with the Judicial Service Commission, removing the current transparent process of public interviews and nominations. This has been fiercely criticized for turning judges into "presidential hirelings" and undermining public confidence in an impartial judiciary.
⦁ Manipulating the Electoral Process: The bill seeks to transfer key electoral functions—like voter registration and delimiting constituency boundaries from the independent Zimbabwe Electoral Commission (ZEC) to bodies controlled by presidential appointees. Critics warn this opens the door to political manipulation and jeopardizes the integrity of future elections.
Shrinking Civic Space and State Repression
The push for the amendment has been accompanied by what Human Rights Watch describes as a government-backed crackdown on dissent, creating a climate of fear that stifles any meaningful public debate.
⦁ Violence and Intimidation: There have been numerous reports of violence against opponents of the bill. Notably, Lovemore Madhuku, a prominent lawyer and leader of the National Constitutional Assembly (NCA), was reportedly assaulted by armed men, some identifying themselves as police, at his party's offices. The Zimbabwe Peace Project (ZPP) has documented a growing climate of intimidation where citizens feel "pressured to support the Bill," and opposing views are effectively criminalized.
⦁ Blocking Peaceful Gatherings: Civil society groups and opposition parties have been arbitrarily barred from holding meetings to discuss the bill. The "Defend the Constitution Platform" was prohibited from holding a youth meeting in Bulawayo, and another public discussion on the amendments was cancelled despite reportedly having prior police clearance. Critics argue this contradicts President Mnangagwa's early promises of openness and a "new dispensation”.
A Broken Promise and Fears of Instability
The bill is also seen as a profound personal betrayal by President Mnangagwa, who had repeatedly and publicly pledged to respect constitutional term limits. In a 2018 interview, and as recently as last year, he stated he would serve only two terms and would "persuade the persuaders not to persuade him" to extend his tenure. His current support for the extension has led many to question his commitment to constitutionalism.
Opposition leader Jameson Timba has argued that manipulating the constitution to extend incumbency without the consent of the people is a form of "unconstitutional change of government" that Zimbabwe must avoid. His platform has launched a petition to gather one million signatures demanding a referendum and has appealed to regional and international bodies like SADC and the UN to intervene.
International and Regional Obligations
Human rights groups like ZLHR and Human Rights Watch point out that the process and the bill itself violate regional and international treaties Zimbabwe has ratified, such as the African Charter on Democracy, Elections and Governance and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. These instruments obligate Zimbabwe to uphold democracy, the rule of law, and fundamental freedoms. The suppression of debate and the consolidation of executive power stand in stark contrast to these commitments.
In essence, the criticism against Constitutional Amendment Bill No. 3 is that it represents a wholesale assault on Zimbabwe's young democracy replacing the will of the people with the will of the party and replacing independent institutions with instruments of presidential power.
Kudakwashe Siziba is a Zimbabwean based in the Diaspora. He writes in his personal capacity.
