BY WANDILE TSHUMA
Opposition and independent Members of Parliament mounted a vigorous defence of Zimbabwe’s 2013 Constitution on Tuesday, warning that proposed constitutional amendments could centralise power, weaken democratic safeguards and undermine gains achieved through years of constitutional reform.
Debate on the Constitution of Zimbabwe Amendment (No. 3) Bill saw legislators challenge both the substance and intent of several proposed changes, including the extension of terms of office, changes to the presidential election system and the restructuring of constitutional commissions.
Agency Gumbo, the CCC MP for Hatcliffe and a legal practitioner, delivered one of the strongest criticisms of the Bill, arguing that constitutions exist primarily to restrain those in power rather than expand their authority.
“The Constitution exists for one fundamental purpose: to limit power, distribute power and to make power accountable to the people,” Gumbo said during debate.
He warned that Zimbabwe’s democratic future depended on strengthening institutions rather than extending the tenure of political office holders.
“Strong nations are built by strong institutions, not by extended incumbents,” he said.
Another contentious proposal involved plans to abolish the Zimbabwe Gender Commission as a stand-alone body and merge it with the Zimbabwe Human Rights Commission.
Susan Matsunga, the CCC MP for Budiriro North, strongly opposed the proposal, arguing that women and vulnerable groups would lose an important institution dedicated to addressing gender-based discrimination and violence.
“I do not agree that we should dismantle the Gender Commission. Who is going to stand up for the girl child and women and who will come up with a database of rapists in our area?” Matsunga asked.
Opposition legislators argued that the commission performs a specialised role that cannot easily be absorbed into a broader human rights institution.
Edwin Mushoriwa, the CCC MP for Dzivaresekwa, accused the government of pursuing constitutional changes designed primarily to preserve political power rather than address the everyday concerns of citizens.
“This Bill is about one thing and one thing alone, which is the accumulation and the preservation of political power,” Mushoriwa said.
He also criticised proposals that would allow Parliament to elect the President, arguing that such a move would remove a key democratic right from ordinary Zimbabweans.
“The people are told they can no longer be trusted to elect their President. Politicians will decide. Really?” he asked.
Concerns were also raised over proposals affecting electoral administration.
Gladys Hlatywayo, the CCC MP for Kuwadzana East, criticised suggestions that responsibility for the voters’ roll be moved from the Zimbabwe Electoral Commission to the Registrar-General’s Office.
Opposition legislators argued that such a move would reduce the independence of electoral processes and place excessive influence in the hands of the executive.
Hlatywayo further questioned the credibility of the public consultation process that preceded the Bill, claiming some hearings were characterised by intimidation.
“Any attempt to extend term limits outside a referendum is procedural, unconstitutional, undemocratic, fundamentally flawed and will set a bad and dangerous precedent,” she warned.
Throughout the debate, opposition MPs repeatedly returned to the argument that Zimbabwe’s Constitution was overwhelmingly approved by voters in a national referendum in 2013 and should not be fundamentally altered without direct public endorsement.
As proceedings drew to a close, calls for a fresh referendum grew louder from critics of the Bill, who insisted that Parliament alone should not decide on changes they believe could reshape Zimbabwe’s political system for generations.
The debate is set to continue today.
