Zanu-PF 'coaching' members on constitution overhaul

Reports that the ruling Zanu-PF is allegedly guiding its members on how to contribute to the ongoing constitutional amendment consultations have sparked criticism from analysts, who warn that such practices could undermine the credibility of the process.

The proposed Constitution of Zimbabwe Amendment Bill No. 3 seeks sweeping changes, including scrapping direct presidential elections and extending presidential and parliamentary terms from five to seven years. It also proposes changes affecting independent institutions, including the Zimbabwe Electoral Commission (ZEC).

According to reports, internal “rehearsals” and a standardised submission template are allegedly being used in some party structures ahead of public hearings. The template reportedly encourages members to support key provisions of the Bill, including the extension of political terms, while citing arguments about governance continuity and long-term development planning.

Zanu-PF director of information Farai Marapira has dismissed the allegations, insisting the party promotes open discussion and denies any effort to suppress dissent.

However, political analysts have raised concerns that if submissions are pre-scripted or influenced, the integrity of the consultation process may be compromised. Analyst Ibbo Mandaza described the situation as troubling, while Reuben Mbofana warned that compelled or coordinated submissions may not reflect genuine public opinion.

Other analysts, including Rashweat Mukundu and Rejoice Ngwenya, also questioned whether the process can be considered democratic if participation is influenced or restricted.

The concerns come amid broader tensions around the constitutional reform process, including reports of opposition meetings being disrupted. A public meeting organised by opposition legislator Richard Tsvangirai was reportedly halted by police in Norton.

Analysts argue that for the consultation process to be credible, submissions must be freely made and reflect the genuine views of citizens. Any perception of coordination, coercion, or suppression risks undermining public trust in one of the country's most significant constitutional review exercises.