Calls Grow for Referendum as Constitutional Amendment Bill No. 3 Hearings Turn Contentious

Public hearings on Zimbabwe's Constitutional Amendment Bill No. 3 have entered a critical phase, with growing calls from citizens and analysts for the proposed changes to be subjected to a national referendum.

The Bill, currently before the Parliament of Zimbabwe, seeks to extend the terms of office for councillors, Members of Parliament and the President from five to seven years.

 Proponents argue the extension would allow elected officials more time to implement development projects and reduce disruptions associated with frequent electoral cycles.

However, the hearings—held in various parts of the country—have exposed deep divisions among citizens. Several speakers have argued that altering the length of elected terms, particularly where incumbents stand to benefit, requires direct public approval through a referendum.

Political analyst Kennedy Kaitano said the volume and consistency of such submissions should not be ignored.

 “There is a clear and growing sentiment that this is not a matter Parliament can decide unilaterally,” he noted.

Supporters of the Bill have defended it on practical grounds.

 Some participants at the hearings cited the country's often tense electoral environment, arguing that disputes over election outcomes consume significant time at the beginning of each term, while preparations for subsequent elections begin well before the term ends.

Yet critics contend that the so-called “toxic” political environment is itself a result of longstanding governance and electoral challenges. 

They point to a history of political violence and contested elections, including the widely disputed 2008 Zimbabwean elections, as evidence that systemic reforms—not term extensions—are needed.

Concerns have also been raised about the conduct of the current consultation process.

 Reports of disruptions, intimidation and the silencing of dissenting voices have emerged from some hearing venues. In one widely circulated incident, opposition figures including Douglas Coltart were reportedly involved in confrontations during proceedings, raising questions about the inclusivity and credibility of the process.

Observers say such incidents risk undermining the legitimacy of the consultations and may strengthen arguments for broader public participation through a referendum.

Legal experts note that Zimbabwe's Constitution provides clear guidance on amendments, particularly where changes may affect the tenure of sitting office holders. 

They argue that extending terms without direct voter approval could face significant constitutional and political challenges.

Meanwhile, critics of the Bill have also dismissed some arguments made in its favour as out of touch with citizens' lived realities, accusing political leaders of prioritising tenure over accountability and service delivery.

As the hearings continue, attention is now shifting to how Parliament and key legal authorities—including Justice Minister Ziyambi Ziyambi and Attorney-General Virginia Mabhiza - will respond to the concerns being raised.

With public opinion appearing sharply divided, analysts say the handling of the Bill could become a defining test of Zimbabwe's commitment to constitutionalism and democratic accountability.

For now, one demand is becoming increasingly clear across the political spectrum: if the proposed changes are to proceed, many Zimbabweans want the final decision to rest with the people themselves.