A prominent Zimbabwean advocacy group has launched a formal legal challenge against the Parliament of Zimbabwe, alleging that the public consultation process for a high-stakes constitutional amendment was "woefully inadequate" and marred by state-sponsored intimidation.
The Constitutional Defenders Forum (CDF), represented by human rights attorneys Tinashe Chinopfukutwa and Kelvin Kabaya from Zimbabwe Lawyers for Human Rights (ZLHR), has petitioned Speaker of Parliament Jacob Mudenda to immediately extend the consultation window for Constitutional Amendment Bill No. 3 (CAB3).
The group argued that the four-day schedule—running from March 30 to April 2—denied the vast majority of the citizenry a meaningful voice in a process that could fundamentally alter the nation's governance.
In a sternly worded submission to the speaker, the CDF's legal team emphasised the gravity of the proposed legislative changes.
“Constitutional Amendment Bill No. 3 seeks to make far-reaching and drastic changes to the basic structure of the constitution and the state,” the lawyers argued.
Despite the high stakes, they noted that the hearings were compressed into a mere 96-hour window across the entire country, a timeframe they contend is insufficient to capture the national sentiment.
“Our client contends that the four day period is inadequate for all the Zimbabweans to have been afforded a reasonable opportunity for them to articulate and express their views regarding Constitutional Amendment Bill Number 3,” the submission read.
The CDF pointed out a significant discrepancy between the current rushed timeline and the legal provisions available to Parliament.
Under existing laws, the consultation process could have been extended over a 90-day period, which would not expire until May 2026.
The decision to collapse this window into four days has been described by activists as a disconcerting attempt to bypass public scrutiny.
Beyond the timeline, the CDF highlighted logistical failures that effectively disenfranchised large portions of the population.
According to the group, Parliament scheduled only one hearing per district, regardless of its size or population density.
This approach led to severe imbalances; for instance, in Masvingo province, which contains 26 constituencies, only seven meetings were convened.
The CDF argued that this geographic distribution gives "undue weight" to smaller districts while silencing the residents of more populous areas, advocating instead for a constituency-based hearing model.
Several venues were reportedly too small to accommodate the crowds, leaving many would-be participants unable to enter or speak.
The challenge also contains harrowing accounts of violence and administrative bias.
The CDF alleged that the hearings were not only physically inaccessible but were actively policed by "thugs" and uncooperative moderators.
In Harare, at the City Sports Centre, prominent human rights lawyer Douglas Coltart was reportedly assaulted and robbed of his mobile phone.
Similar reports emerged from Bulawayo’s Nketa Hall, where university students, including Keegan Mathe, were allegedly attacked.
Mathe was reportedly abducted by individuals in an unmarked vehicle following the assault.
In one particularly striking incident, a woman who attempted to voice critical views was reportedly dragged from a venue and assaulted while police officers watched without intervening.
“No doubt, these events had a chilling effect on the remaining members of the public who wished to participate,” the lawyers noted in their letter to Mudenda.
The CDF also alleged that the hearings were "choreographed" to favour supporters of the bill.
In the capital, moderators reportedly refused to grant the floor to high-profile critics and legal experts, including Tendai Biti, Fadzai Mahere, and Lovemore Madhuku.
In Gweru, the proceedings turned volatile when opposition politician Amos Chibaya attempted to object to amendments regarding the involvement of traditional chiefs in politics.
Chibaya was heckled and threatened before a youth forcibly seized the microphone from him.
In light of these alleged systemic failures, the CDF has called on Mudenda to cause Parliament to reconvene the public hearings.
They have demanded that any future consultations include heightened security measures to ensure that all citizens, regardless of their political leanings, can "effectively, reasonably and adequately express their views on the bill" without fear of retribution.
Mudenda has been cited in a number of court challenges seeking to block the proposed constitutional amendments.