The Sapes Policy Dialogue, held on March 5, 2026 was convened as the title of the article suggests, to discuss the perplexing emergence of political violence over the proposed Constitutional Amendment No. 3.
The attacks on respected civic leaders such as Lovemore Madhuku and Tendai Biti, the threats against other civic leaders who include Jameson Timba and Ibbo Mandaza, the banning of meetings, and the arrests of MPs and civic leaders are in complete contrast to the previous constitutional processes.
As Ibbo Mandaza pointed out, the process around the 2000 constitution was lengthy — six months.
It had enormous involvement of Zimbabweans, with 400 members of the Constitutional Commission representing all sectors of Zimbabwean society. It led to widespread public meetings around the country, and was entirely peaceful. Madhuku made the same point about the 2013 processes: even though the National Constitutional Assembly (NCA) was not in support of the proposed constitution, it participated in the widespread and peaceful consultations.
The 2013 constitution was adopted in the referendum by more than 90% of the voters, while the 2000 one was rejected by a narrow majority. This rejection was most likely not because of the merits of the 2000 constitution, but a vote-of-no-confidence in the Zanu PF government.
So, why is this constitutional process so different? Why is the government avoiding a referendum? And why is the government condoning violence and intimidation and preventing any possible discussion by possible opponents to the Constitutional Bill?
Keep Reading
- Biti concludes ConCourt application
- AFM church leader in court for fraud
- Biti alleges ‘powerful forces’ after him
- Biti reported to Law Society
The fact is that everyone knows that the proposed Bill will be massively rejected by the populace in a referendum, and a clue to the violence and intimidation is contained in the Breaking Barriers Initiative (BBI) document apparently guiding this constitutional reform.
Allegedly authored by a small team around Jonathan Moyo, and in the context of the multimedia and communication strategy, the relevant section states: The interactive multimedia public engagement will also support and publicise the 11 outreach interfaces of the BB Parliamentary Select Committee; including by countering, drowning, crowding out and disrupting negative narratives.
It takes little imagination in the light of current political violence and intimidation to understand what countering, drowning, crowding out and disrupting negative narratives means. It was just the implications of this bald statement and the political violence and intimidations that prompted the need for the policy dialogue.
The policy dialogue thus examined a wide range of issues about the proposed amendment, the violence and intimidation and its persistence for decades (Frances Lovemore), the complexities of the current political economy affecting any challenge to the proposal (Brian Raftopoulos), the direct experience of the violence and the need to resist the decimation of democracy in Zimbabwe (Madhuku), and the need for a unified campaign to resist the imposition of this amendment (Kenneth Mtata).
Following the robust deliberations at the Sapes Trust Dialogue, the participants, after considering, among many issues, agreed and extended the suggestions for the way forward proposed by Reverend Mtata, as follows:
l Persist in the struggle, however small the steps: It was agreed to continue the work of defending our constitution in whatever spaces we occupy — as individuals, as organisations, and as communities. Refuse to be silenced by violence or intimidation, and commit to keeping the flame of constitutionalism alive, knowing that even small, consistent actions build towards meaningful change. We must not give up;
l A unified movement under a common charter: It was recognised that our strength lies in our unity. To this end, it was agreed to consolidate all pro-democracy forces — civil society, professional bodies, and citizens — under a Common Charter for Constitutional Integrity. Call upon the church, as a trusted moral voice, to convene and shepherd this process. The goal is simple: one national movement, speaking with one voice, to defend the people’s constitution against any capture or manipulation;
l Civic education that connects to daily life: It was agreed that civic education must move beyond elite circles and speak directly to the struggles of ordinary Zimbabweans. Intensify efforts to educate our communities on how the constitution impacts their daily lives — their jobs, their security, their land, and their futures. A people who know their rights will never consent to their violation;
l Resist the capture of state institutions: It was agreed that a firm warning should be sent against any attempt to capture state institutions for the purpose of advancing the proposed 2030 constitutional agenda. Call upon the police, the judiciary, the army, intelligence services, and traditional leaders to remain faithful to their constitutional oaths. They must serve the people, not any political party or individual. Resist, by all lawful means, any effort to turn these institutions into weapons against the very citizens they are sworn to protect; and
l Call upon the Southern African Development Community (Sadc) to heed the cry of the people: Finally, it was agreed that Sadc cannot stand by as a silent witness to the erosion of constitutionalism in Zimbabwe. Call upon Sadc to live up to its own Treaty principles — democracy, rule of law, and human rights. Demand that Sadc be dragged, if necessary, from its indifference into action. The cries of the Zimbabwean people must be heard, and our regional body must respond with the urgency the situation demands.
So, the violence and intimidation is clearly planned and condoned, and all groups, and not merely the panellists agree about this. Many groups such as the Zimbabwe heads of Christian denominations, the NCA, the Defend the Constitution Platform, the Constitutional Defenders Forum, the Amalgamated Rural Teachers Union of Zimbabwe, Women’s Coalition of Zimbabwe, and many others have both expressed their opposition to the Bill and offered similar ideas about the way forward. Perhaps the onslaught of opposition will persuade the President (Emmerson Mnangagwa) to honour his claim of being a constitutionalist and bury the Bill.
Mandaza and Reeler are co-conveners of the Platform for Concerned Citizens.