By Correspondent
The just-concluded public hearings on the Constitutional Amendment Number 3 Bill, while largely characterised by strong endorsements, have also revealed a persistent and important counter-current: a consistent call for a national referendum from those opposed to the proposed changes.
Though numerically inferior, these voices raise a fundamental democratic question that cannot be dismissed based on majority sentiment alone.
At the heart of this debate lies not just the legality of the amendment process, but its legitimacy.
Gvt’s Anti-Referendum Stance
Government officials, including Attorney General Virginia Mabhiza and Justice Minister Ziyambi Ziyambi, have maintained that Section 328(6) of the Constitution of Zimbabwe clearly outlines when a referendum is required.
According to Mabhiza, the Constitution reserves referendums for amendments affecting specific provisions such as the Declaration of Rights, agricultural land, or the amendment procedures themselves, and the current Bill does not meet that threshold.
This position reflects a strict legal interpretation of the Constitution, and it has been consistently advanced by government and ruling party activists in public discourse.
However, constitutionalism is not merely about legality; it is equally about democratic ethos.
Around the world, referendums have become a benchmark for testing public will on critical governance issues, especially those that affect the structure of power and leadership tenure.
Zimbabwe itself has precedent in this regard.
The 2000 Zimbabwe Constitutional Referendum and the 2013 Zimbabwe Constitutional Referendum both provided citizens with a direct voice in shaping the country’s supreme law.
These exercises not only enhanced legitimacy but also fostered national ownership of the outcomes, regardless of the results.
Even if Constitutional Amendment No. 3 does not explicitly fall under the categories requiring a referendum, its implications—particularly those touching on governance structures and perceived extensions of political authority—carry significant weight in the public imagination.
In such cases, adhering strictly to the minimum legal threshold risks undermining broader democratic principles.
Benefits Of A Referendum
A referendum could serve as a powerful instrument of inclusion and consensus-building.
Furthermore, the structure of the public hearings themselves raised questions about representativeness.
With only one public hearing per district, attended on average by a few hundred participants, the process inevitably excluded large segments of the population.
Zimbabwe’s rural communities, in particular, face logistical and economic barriers that limit participation in such forums.
While Parliament invited written submissions via email or physical delivery, these channels are not equally accessible to all citizens, especially in areas with limited internet connectivity or postal infrastructure.
The demand for a referendum, therefore, must be understood not simply as opposition to the Bill, but as a call for deeper democratic engagement.
It reflects concerns about inclusivity, transparency, and the long-term credibility of constitutional reforms.
Dismissing these calls outright risks reinforcing perceptions that the process is driven more by political expediency than by genuine public consultation.
———————————————————————————————————-
Love what we do? We’re dedicated to opening up democracy, one article, video and story at a time. If you find our reporting helpful, you can support the Magamba Network team by buying us a coffee. It’s quick, easy, and makes a real difference!
————————————————————————————————————
