Legal Imperatives Demand Referendum on Zimbabwe’s Constitutional Amendment No 3 Despite State Media Support

Source: www.zimbabwesituation.com

Since the gazetting of the Constitutional Amendment (No 3) Bill by Minister of Legal Affairs Ziyambi Ziyambi, Zimbabwe’s state-controlled media, particularly the Zimbabwe Broadcasting Corporation (ZBC), has launched a vigorous campaign promoting the amendment. The broadcaster has aired numerous interviews featuring ZANU-PF officials, traditional leaders, and other purported supporters from across the country, all echoing a scripted narrative emphasizing “continuity,” “stability,” and the president’s need to “finish his projects.” This orchestrated media push aims to create an impression of widespread national consensus in favor of the amendment.

However, legal analysts and constitutional advocates argue that this manufactured support cannot substitute for the constitutional requirement of a national referendum. The 2013 Constitution of Zimbabwe explicitly protects certain provisions, including those limiting the length of time a person may hold public office. Section 328(1) defines “term-limit provisions” broadly, covering any constitutional clause that restricts the duration of occupancy of public office. Therefore, the proposed extension of the presidential term from five to seven years constitutes an amendment to a term-limit provision.

This distinction is critical because the Constitution mandates that any amendment affecting term limits must be approved through a national referendum. No amount of televised endorsements or staged public rallies can override this legal safeguard. The Constitution is not merely a document to be swayed by popular opinion or political expediency; it is a living legal framework designed to protect fundamental democratic principles and prevent the entrenchment of power.

Beyond the term-limit issue, the Amendment No 3 Bill also proposes significant changes to electoral administration. It seeks to transfer the responsibility for voter registration and maintenance of the voters’ roll from the Zimbabwe Electoral Commission (ZEC) to the Registrar-General. Additionally, it establishes a Zimbabwe Electoral Delimitation Commission, whose members would be appointed by the President to fix and alter constituency and ward boundaries every ten years. These changes raise further concerns about the concentration of power in the executive branch, given the President’s sole authority to appoint commission members.

The government’s framing of the amendment as a technical adjustment to electoral cycles or a mere extension of existing terms is viewed by critics as a linguistic maneuver to circumvent constitutional protections. The law’s clarity on term-limit provisions leaves little room for such reinterpretation. As constitutional expert Tendai Ruben Mbofana notes, the Constitution was intentionally written in accessible language to prevent legal manipulation and ensure that citizens understand their rights and the limits of governmental power.

In sum, while the state media continues its relentless campaign to manufacture consent for Amendment No 3, the legal reality remains that the amendment’s legitimacy hinges on a national referendum. This process is the only constitutionally recognized mechanism for the people of Zimbabwe to express their will on fundamental changes to the nation’s supreme law. Without it, any alteration to presidential term limits would lack legal validity, regardless of the volume of orchestrated public support broadcast on ZBC.

Related topics: Constitutional Amendment, Referendum, ZBC, ZANU-PF, Political Propaganda, Zimbabwe, Legal Affairs, State Media, Political Debate, Governance

Read original article →