ZIMBABWE’S civic society says the public hearings set to be held as Zanu PF forges ahead with Constitutional Amendment No 3 Bill are cosmetic.
Last month, Parliament of Zimbabwe invited the public to submit comments on Constitutional Amendment No 3 Bill.
In a notice, Parliament said it was acting in line with section 328(4) of the Constitution, which requires lawmakers to seek public views on any proposed constitutional amendment.
Parliament said comments on the Bill should be submitted via email to the Clerk of Parliament at [email protected] or delivered physically to Parliament Building in Mt Hampden, Harare, by May 15, 2026.
The public hearings are set for March 30 to April 2, 2026.
In a statement on Tuesday the Zimbabwe Constitutional Movement (Zicomo), a civil society network of institutions advocating for constitutionalism in Zimbabwe, noted with “serious concern” the recent invitation by Parliament of Zimbabwe for citizens to participate in the upcoming public hearings for the Constitutional Amendment Number 3 Bill of 2026.
“While Parliament is trying to be seen to be facilitating consultations, we argue that these public hearings are cosmetic, especially in the context that, in fact, Parliament ought to be facilitating a national referendum,” Zicomo said.
“Zicomo, in particular, highlights the following: The people fronting the Constitutional Amendment Bill No 3 argue that they need a two-thirds majority in Parliament since the Bill concerns changing term limits. But the same proponents are refusing Zimbabweans a referendum, arguing that Bill Number 3 does not ‘extend term limits’ — whichever wording is used.
- Corruption Watch: Get scared, 2023 is coming
- Corruption Watch: Get scared, 2023 is coming
- Letters: Ensuring Africa’s food security through availability of quality seeds
- Is military's involvement in politics compatible with democracy?
Keep Reading
“The sharp partisan nature of public discussions is striking. Supporters and allies of the amendment can easily hold meetings and public consultations, receiving significant coverage in the media.
“In contrast, those opposed to the Bill face serious repercussions, including warnings, intimidation, dispersal, arrests and physical violence. This hostile environment effectively denies Zimbabweans their rights.”
The organisation added: “The parliamentary public meetings list, assuming it is in good faith, falls far short of public consultations for such an important Bill.
“Allocating one meeting for Bulawayo and less than five for Harare province reveals their intention of putting partisan political interests above national interests.
“We raise concern about the incestuous precedent that this Parliament is setting by conducting public consultations on issues that would provide them with a direct and illegal benefit by extending their term of office from five years to seven.
“This proposal contradicts section 143(1), which states that ‘Parliament is elected for a five-year term that begins when the President-elect is sworn in and assumes office as outlined in section 94(1)(a)’.”
Zicomo said a more rational approach from the Speaker of National Assembly would have been to request the President to establish an independent commission to conduct this process impartially.
It urged Parliament to reconsider moving forward with the public hearings, as the foundation of the process appears to be flawed.
“We would like to remind the Speaker of [National Assembly], Jacob Mudenda, who also serves as the secretary-general of the ruling party, Zanu PF, to uphold the integrity of Parliament.
“Parliament must serve all Zimbabweans, regardless of political affiliation. Mixing the role of the Speaker with his private position as secretary-general of Zanu PF is inappropriate and unacceptable.
“The separation of the Speaker’s official duties from his role within Zanu PF is crucial, as Zimbabwe is a nation founded on collective rights and citizenship, while Zanu PF is a political party formed by voluntary membership.”
Zicomo called on President Emmerson Mnangagwa and his government to adhere strictly to the Constitution.
“We urge that the proposed amendments be put to a national referendum, allowing the voice of the people to be heard clearly and effectively, without fear or favour.
“Furthermore, we implore the government to ensure the safety and protection of all Zimbabweans who choose to participate in upcoming public hearings.
“Their ability to express their views freely and without fear is crucial to a genuine people-driven democratic process.
“Any deviation from this norm risks destabilising Zimbabwe.”
The civic society added to a growing list of Zimbabweans who are calling for Constitutional Amendment No 3 Bill to be subjected to a referendum, which Zanu PF is steering clear of to avoid a disappointing rejection.
Former military generals and war veterans have also voiced concern and want the amendments to be subjected to a referendum.
However, both the government and Zanu PF maintain that there is no need for a referendum, arguing that the right to amend the charter rests solely with Parliament.
Commenting on X (formerly Twitter), the office of the Attorney-General said: “The Bill proposes amendments to certain provisions of the Constitution, including sections 92, 95, 143 and 158.
“These provisions relate primarily to the framework governing the timing and conduct of national elections.”
It said the proposed amendments were, therefore, directed at addressing issues relating to the national electoral cycle for the presidency, Parliament and local authorities.
“Under the current constitutional framework, the duration of the presidency and that of Parliament are linked through provisions that establish a harmonised electoral cycle.
“Section 95(2)(b) provides for the term of office of the presidency within the electoral cycle, while section 143(1) provides for the duration and dissolution of Parliament.
“These provisions operate together with section 158, which governs the timing of general elections.
“In practice, these sections collectively regulate the periodic conduct of harmonised elections.
“It is important to note that section 95(2)(b) does not deal with or alter the constitutional provisions relating to presidential term limits, which remain governed by other provisions of the Constitution.”
The Attorney-General’s office added: “The Bill proposes to amend section 95(2)(b) and section 143(1) by substituting the current five-year electoral cycle with a seven-year cycle, while maintaining the harmonised nature of elections for Parliament and local authorities as provided for under section 158.
“The Bill also contains transitional provisions to clarify the application of the proposed cycle in relation to the current electoral period.
“Accordingly, the proposed amendments should be understood in the context of the structure and timing of the national electoral cycle, rather than as amendments to provisions relating to presidential term limits.
“These amendments are not designed to benefit office bearers, but rather they reform institutions that automatically fall under the electoral cycle.”
