ZICOMO rejects parliamentary committee report endorsing constitutional amendment bill no. 3

Public consultation is a constitutional obligation, not a mere public relations exercise to legitimise political expediency and to massage the egos of political elites. The Committee failed that test. Its report lacks rigorous constitutional analysis and instead rubber-stamps proposals that violate the supreme law of the land.

The Constitution is not a political tool. It is the supreme law, binding on all persons and institutions. Constitutional principles, democratic values, and the sovereign will of the people must guide its amendment. It must never be driven by political expediency or personal ambition.

ZICOMO rejects, in the strongest terms, the Committee’s endorsement of provisions that:

• Extend presidential and parliamentary terms from five to seven years — a direct assault on term limits;
• Remove the people’s right to directly elect the President — replacing democracy with appointment by Parliament;
• Transfer electoral functions from the independent ZEC to the Registrar-General — concentrating power and destroying electoral integrity;
• Weaken constitutional safeguards for judicial independence — exposing the courts to executive capture;
• Fragment electoral management through new bodies with no guaranteed independence — opening the door to manipulation.

On constitutional breaches and dismissal of minority views: 

The report also dismisses minority views without adequate engagement. In numerous sections, concerns about direct presidential elections, electoral independence, judicial appointments, traditional leaders and politics, and the Constitutional Court’s jurisdiction are acknowledged only to be immediately rejected. The Committee admits these proposals may violate Section 328 of the Constitution, yet recommends them regardless. That is not an oversight. That is complicity. The Committee rarely provides detailed legal reasoning to show why these objections are wrong. A parliamentary report must evaluate competing constitutional arguments, not simply record them and proceed. Rubber-stamping political intent is not constitutional analysis.

Discrepancies in Submission Numbers Raise Red Flags

The report states that 540,037 written submissions were received, with 537,102 supporting the Bill and only 2,935 opposing it. However, Parliament also reports that only 54,231 people attended public hearings nationwide.

These figures raise serious questions. It is difficult to explain how more than half a million written submissions were received when fewer than 55,000 people attended the hearings. The discrepancy creates concerns about the accuracy of the figures, possible duplication of submissions, and whether the reported level of support genuinely reflects public opinion.

Constitutional reform must be based on a credible, transparent, and verifiable process. Public confidence cannot be built on statistics that appear inconsistent and require further explanation.

On the claim of 537,000 “supporters”:  The report alleges that 537,000 of 540,000 submissions supported CAB3, yet it fails to explain how these submissions were verified, whether identical responses were counted multiple times, whether organised campaigns submitted bulk responses, whether independent auditing was conducted, or whether any assessment of authenticity took place. Without transparent verification and independent scrutiny, these figures are unverified and cannot be used to manufacture public consent for constitutional change.

Without methodological transparency, the figures cannot be independently verified and therefore cannot serve as a reliable basis for constitutional reform.

We therefore demand immediate publication of all submissions for independent verification and audit. Until then, these numbers are unproven and must not be used to justify constitutional vandalism. Credibility is not claimed. It is proven.

Our position is non-negotiable:

Any amendment affecting presidential terms, electoral rights, democratic participation, or the separation of powers MUST be approved by the people of Zimbabwe through a national referendum, as required by Section 328. Parliament has no authority to substitute itself for the sovereign will of the people.

The Constitution belongs to the people of Zimbabwe. Not to Parliament. Not to political parties. Not to any individual.

ZICOMO therefore demands:

• Parliament must REJECT every provision that undermines constitutional democracy, electoral independence, and judicial independence;
•  Government must OBEY Section 328 — no shortcuts, no circumvention;
• Citizens, churches, unions, students, traditional leaders, and civil society must STAND UP and defend the Constitution before it is stolen;
• SADC, AU, and the international community must ACT — monitor CAB3 and speak out against constitutional manipulation in Zimbabwe.

As a result, the report reads more as an endorsement of Constitutional Amendment Bill No. 3 than as an objective parliamentary assessment of its constitutional validity and democratic implications. For a constitutional amendment of such far-reaching significance, Zimbabweans deserve a more rigorous, transparent and constitutionally grounded analysis.

Zimbabwe’s future will be determined by constitutional democracy, not by constitutional manipulation. ZICOMO will use every lawful means to defend constitutionalism, term limits, democratic accountability, separation of powers, and the sovereign right of Zimbabweans to determine their own future.

The Constitution is the People’s Covenant. It will not be amended against the people.