Tendai Ruben Mbofana
The bedrock of any functioning democracy is the sanctity of its social contract—the constitution.
If you value my social justice advocacy and writing, please consider a financial contribution to keep it going. Contact me on WhatsApp: +263 715 667 700 or Email: mbofana.tendairuben73@gmail.com
It is the definitive agreement between the governed and those who govern, a document that should never be altered on a whim or for the narrow interests of a few.
Yet, as the parliamentary public hearings on Constitutional Amendment (No. 3) Bill—otherwise known as CAB3—kicked off in Zimbabwe today, that social contract was not being honored; it was being systematically shredded.
What was legally mandated to be a robust, transparent, and inclusive consultative process has instead been revealed as a meticulously choreographed charade.
This is a project designed to provide a hollow veneer of legitimacy to a Bill that fundamentally undermines the democratic aspirations of the Zimbabwean people.
The Bill itself seeks to, amongst other things, extend the current president’s term from five to seven years.
It has been in its 90-day consultative process since being gazetted on 16 February 2026.
This period is supposed to be a sacred window where the state gathers the genuine views of the populace so they can be taken on board to determine the fate of the Bill.
However, as was to be expected, a massive problem has emerged.
Out of those 90 days, the government has seen fit to dedicate a paltry four days to physical public hearings.
The remaining time was left for Zimbabweans to send their views via email.
This is a curious and frankly insulting decision when one considers that the vast majority of Zimbabweans either cannot use email or simply have no access to it.
It begs the question: how can a government reserve only four days for physical interaction in a country of 15 million people?
The logistical failure is not an accident; it is a strategy of exclusion.
With just over 60 venues set aside for the entire country, thousands are effectively locked out.
Take the Midlands province as a glaring example.
An entire province, sprawling and diverse, has been granted a miserable eight venues.
The schedule is even more punishing.
The small parliamentary team assigned to these hearings rotates from one venue to another with breathless speed.
Today, we saw the impossibility of this task in real-time.
Public hearings were set for Gokwe Center at 10 am, with the team expected in Kwekwe City by 2 pm.
When you account for travel and setup, thousands of Zimbabweans are expected to condense their concerns about the future of their nation’s governance into a frantic three-hour window.
This is not consultation; it is a drive-by exercise in box-ticking.
How is this supposed to be a legitimate process for capturing views on matters as grave as extending a presidential term or changing how a president is elected from a popular vote to parliamentary selection?
This charade was in full display today.
Hoards of ZANU-PF supporters were bused in to pack the handful of venues, creating a physical and vocal barrier.
I received a WhatsApp message from a ZANU-PF supporter who was humble enough to express utter dismay at how his own party forced vendors and others in Bulawayo to attend the hearings at the Large City Hall.
They were made to sit in the front so they would be the ones carefully selected to speak in an event that was clearly pre-planned and choreographed.
Even prominent figures were not immune to this silencing.
The Bulawayo Mayor and opposition member, David Coltart, posted on X that despite sitting at the front and raising his hand numerous times, he was repeatedly ignored and skipped.
While the ruling party buses people in to create a mirage of attendance, thousands of ordinary Zimbabweans remained stuck in their villages, unable to afford the expensive distances required to reach these few venues.
The exclusionary nature of this process was laid bare by a poll I conducted on my WhatsApp channel of over 10,000 followers, in which the majority of respondents indicated they failed to attend the hearings due to the prohibitive distances, and while the few venues were packed, they were flooded by bused-in ZANU-PF supporters whose presence was used to suppress any genuine, dissenting views.
This entire process is a sham.
Largely those carefully selected and bused in by ZANU-PF managed to express their “views.”
There is no amount of creativity that can frame these hearings as inclusive.
Even the ruling party supporter who messaged me acknowledged that the Bulawayo hearing resembled nothing more than a ZANU-PF rally.
What is needed for a true reflection of the people’s will is a national referendum.
This is not a favor; it is a constitutional requirement.
The Constitution is very clear: Section 328(7) states that any constitutional amendment that extends the length of time a person may hold public office cannot benefit the person who held that office before the amendment.
It does not matter what linguistics or legal gymnastics are used by those in power.
Whether they claim they are not “adding new terms” or are simply “lengthening a term” or “changing the electoral cycle,” the result is the same.
As both Section 328(7) and Section 328(1) unambiguously state, a term-limit provision covers anything regarding the time spent in office by a public official.
If the amendment results in an office-bearer spending more time in that office than previously allowed, the incumbent cannot benefit.
To change this prohibition, one must amend Section 328 itself.
According to Section 328(9), this can only be done through a national referendum, treated with the same weight as the Declaration of Rights in Chapter 4.
The people of Zimbabwe are entitled to this referendum.
There are no two ways about it.
Furthermore, a sincere government would grant a referendum even if it weren’t mandated.
The two constitutional referendums we have had—in 2000 and 2013—were never mandated by law.
The government of that time could have pushed changes through Parliament legally, yet they understood the constitution is a social contract and took it to the people.
Why is the current government denying the people this right today?
It is even more egregious when the law itself mandates it.
What are those in power afraid of?
They are afraid that a secret ballot is impossible to stage-manage like these open hearings.
We all know ZANU-PF is a house divided regarding the extension of the sitting president’s term.
There is a real danger of “bhora musango,” where party officials secretly urge supporters to reject these amendments.
This is why in 2018 and 2023, the president attained far fewer votes than his own party’s MPs.
The thought of a national referendum is a nightmare for those pushing the “ED2030” campaign because they cannot control the silence of a voting booth.
This leaves us with a heavily flawed, illegitimate process.
This illegitimacy is worsened by the systematic suppression of those opposed to the Bill.
Over the past month, we have watched in horror as prominent lawyers and opposition leaders were brutally attacked or allegedly abducted, and meetings were disrupted or barred.
In conclusion, if the government does not give Zimbabweans the referendum they are entitled to, the entire process must be dismissed as a fraud.
If those in power genuinely believe the people support extending the president’s term, then give us a referendum. Period.
- Tendai Ruben Mbofana is a social justice advocate and writer. To directly receive his articles please join his WhatsApp Channel on: https://whatsapp.com/channel/0029VaqprWCIyPtRnKpkHe08