No, Mr. Ziyambi, there were actually fewer public hearings for CAB3 than previous constitutional consultations

Tendai Ruben Mbofana

When the history of Zimbabwe’s democratic struggles is finally written, a special chapter must be reserved for the sheer audacity of state propaganda. 

If you value my social justice advocacy and writing, please consider a financial contribution to keep it going. Contact me on WhatsApp: +263 715 667 700 or Email: mbofana.tendairuben73@gmail.com

The latest performance by Justice Minister Ziyambi Ziyambi on state television, ZBC, is a masterclass in political gaslighting. 

In a desperate bid to legitimize the widely condemned Constitutional Amendment (No. 3) Bill or CAB3, Ziyambi claimed that the public hearings held weeks ago were actually more robust and extensive than past constitutional consultations.

His grand proof? 

The hearings were held in every administrative district, rather than being confined to the provincial capitals used for previous amendments.

This is a dangerous and malicious twisting of facts that cannot go unchallenged. 

By comparing the superficial, heavily managed CAB3 process to the localized provincial tours of Amendment 1 and Amendment 2, the minister is intentionally using a false baseline. 

CAB3 is not a minor administrative tweak. 

It is a sweeping, structural overhaul of our governance architecture that proposes to eliminate the direct popular vote for the presidency, vesting that power in parliament, while simultaneously extending presidential and legislative terms from five to seven years.

An assault of this magnitude on the foundational pillars of our republic can only be fairly compared to the seismic constitutional processes of our past: the 2013 COPAC outreach and the subsequently rejected 2000 draft constitution. 

When measured against those true historical benchmarks, Ziyambi’s claims of an open, superior, and decentralized process disintegrate into absolute falsehood.

True democratic consultation is defined by depth, duration, and the quality of the civic space, not by checking boxes on a district map. 

Look at the historical data. 

The 1999–2000 constitutional commission process and the 2010–2011 COPAC outreach were massive, multi-month national endeavors. 

COPAC deployed teams across 4,821 meetings, penetrating deep into the ward level to ensure that even the most remote rural citizens had a voice over a period of 105 days. 

Contrast that inclusive, democratic expanse with the rushed farce that was manufactured for CAB3, where parliament offered roughly 65 consultation venues nationwide to cover a country of 17 million people over a mere four days. 

More importantly, those historical processes occurred within a fundamentally different democratic climate. 

In 1999, the state did not treat citizens expressing divergent views as enemies of the state. 

Those campaigning for a “no vote” against the 2000 draft were permitted to organize, mobilize, and express themselves freely without the looming threat of state security apparatuses or violent retribution. 

There was a genuine, high-stakes national debate where ideas were contested openly and democratically, completely free from the orchestrated, bussed-in crowds that characterize today’s political theater.

I remember that era vividly because I lived it. 

In 1999, as a resident of Redcliff, I participated directly in the public hearings for the proposed constitution. 

The consultation was not a distant, hurried affair. 

It was held a mere walking distance from my home, at the local Zisco Club. 

It was accessible, spacious, and designed to accommodate the community. 

The atmosphere allowed for rigorous, uninhibited debate where local citizens could genuinely shape the discourse around the supreme law of the land.

Contrast that inclusive, democratic expanse with the rushed farce that was manufactured for CAB3 between March 30 and April 4, 2026. 

To handle a bill that fundamentally strips the Zimbabwean electorate of their direct sovereign right to choose their head of state, parliament allocated a single week of physical hearings. 

For the entire Kwekwe district—a massive administrative zone that encompasses the city of Kwekwe, the town of Redcliff, and vast surrounding rural communities—the state provided exactly one meeting.

This solitary meeting was not held in an open, accessible community space like the Zisco Club of 1999. 

Instead, it was crammed into a tiny theater hall in the Kwekwe central business district, tightly capped at under 3 hours. 

Think about the mathematical and operational absurdity of this setup. 

Expecting hundreds of thousands of citizens from Redcliff, Silobela, and Kwekwe to converge on a single, cramped urban theater during a tiny 180-minute window is not “expanded consultation.” 

It is a deliberate structural barrier disguised as decentralization. 

It ensured that the vast majority of working-class and rural citizens could never realistically travel to, enter, or speak at the venue.

Ziyambi Ziyambi wants the public to believe that adding more geographic dots on a calendar equals superior democracy. 

In reality, shrinking the time, compressing the venues, and restricting the capacity of these meetings achieves the exact opposite. 

It creates a tightly managed funnel where state-aligned actors and manufactured crowds can easily dominate the limited time available, drowning out the authentic, divergent voices of the citizenry.

We must reject this semantic sleight of hand. 

A process that replaces thousands of ward-level, day-long democratic debates with dozens of rushed, three-hour district-level spectacles is a democratic deficit, not a triumph. 

By attempting to legitimize CAB3 through distorted comparisons, the justice minister is merely exposing the regime’s deep anxiety over its lack of popular mandate. 

Zimbabweans know what a free, fair, and inclusive constitutional process looks like because we have built them before. 

We will not be fooled by a rushed, tightly controlled exercise designed to manufacture consent for a constitutional coup.

Nor will we allow the history of our democratic participation to be rewritten on state television.

• Tendai Ruben Mbofana is a social justice advocate and writer. To directly receive his articles please join his WhatsApp Channel on: https://whatsapp.com/channel/0029VaqprWCIyPtRnKpkHe08