Constitutional Amendment Bill No. 3 in Zimbabwe represents a fundamental restructuring of the country's governance framework. While its supporters argue it promotes stability, critics contend it dangerously consolidates executive power, rolls back democratic gains, and undermines the 2013 Constitution's core principle of "power to the people."
The most significant concerns fall into four main categories: the erosion of citizens' voting power, threats to institutional independence, the flawed public consultation process, and specific problematic clauses.
- Eroding Citizens' Voting Power
Critics argue that the bill directly attacks the democratic principle of "one man, one vote."
⦁ End of Direct Presidential Elections: The bill proposes repealing Section 92 of the Constitution to replace direct presidential elections with a system where a President is elected by a joint sitting of Parliament (MPs and Senators). This removes the citizen's right to directly choose their head of state and is seen as a tool to ensure the ruling party retains power even if its popular support declines.
⦁ Extended Term of Office: The bill seeks to extend the presidential and parliamentary terms from five years to seven years. This would keep the current President in office until 2030 and significantly reduce the frequency with which citizens can hold their leaders accountable at the polls.
⦁ A Referendum is Required: Critics point out that under Section 328(7) of the Constitution, any amendment that extends a term of office cannot benefit the incumbent and must be subjected to a referendum. By not mandating a referendum, the government is being accused of violating its own constitution.
- Weakening Institutional Independence
The bill proposes centralizing power in the executive by giving the President direct control over crucial governance bodies.
⦁ Judicial Appointments: The bill would repeal sections requiring public interviews and input from the Judicial Service Commission, allowing the President to appoint all judges at his own discretion. This is viewed as a severe threat to judicial independence and the rule of law, as judges are meant to act as impartial referees.
- ED’s influence will take generations to erase
- ‘Govt spineless on wetland land barons’
- Govt under attack over banks lending ban
- Zim Constitution must be amended
Keep Reading
⦁ Control over Elections: The bill strips the independent Zimbabwe Electoral Commission (ZEC) of key functions. Voter registration and the voters' roll would be handed back to the Registrar-General (a presidential appointee), and a new Delimitation Commission appointed solely by the President would draw electoral boundaries. Critics fear this allows the ruling party to manipulate the "DNA" of elections.
⦁ Prosecutor-General: The President would be empowered to appoint the Prosecutor-General without any advice or oversight, threatening the official's ability to act impartially and free from executive direction.
- Flawed and Intimidating Consultation Process
The public hearings held in March and April 2026 were widely condemned as a sham designed to manufacture consent rather than gather genuine public opinion.
⦁ Violence and Intimidation: There were numerous reports of violence, physical assaults (including on human rights lawyer Doug Coltart), and intimidation against citizens who attempted to speak against the bill. This created a chilling effect that silenced dissent.
⦁ Abductions: Witnesses and civil society groups reported the abductions of youths and activists who had publicly opposed the bill. Some were reportedly found injured after being taken by unidentified individuals.
⦁ Lack of Fair Access: Critics noted that the hearings were packed with ruling-party supporters, while opposition voices, including those of a former Finance Minister and a Mayor, were blocked from speaking. This has led organizations like the Election Resource Centre to warn that the credibility of the process is fundamentally compromised.
- Other Controversial Provisions
Several other clauses in the bill have attracted strong criticism for rolling back constitutional protections.
⦁ Abolishing Independent Commissions: The bill proposes to abolish the Zimbabwe Gender Commission and the National Peace and Reconciliation Commission (NPRC). Critics argue this dilutes the focus on gender-based violence and signals a retreat from state-led national healing.
⦁ Politicizing Traditional Leaders: The bill removes the constitutional requirement that traditional leaders be non-partisan. This is seen as a move to formally integrate chiefs into political campaigning, undermining their role as impartial custodians of custom and land allocation.
⦁ Over-Burdening the Constitutional Court: Granting the Constitutional Court jurisdiction to hear any matter of "general public importance" is seen as a poorly drafted power-grab that could lead to jurisdictional conflict with the Supreme Court.
In summary, critics across civil society, the legal profession, and opposition parties view Bill No. 3 not as a refinement of governance, but as a concerted effort to dismantle the safeguards of the 2013 Constitution and entrench one-party rule.
- Bongani Mangwane Tshabangu is a Zimbabwean based in the Diaspora. She writes in her personal capacity.
