Youth group condemns violence at CAB3 public hearings

Youth‑led organisation WELEAD Africa has condemned a wave of violence linked to ongoing public hearings on the Constitutional Amendment Bill No. 3 (CAB3), citing attacks on activists, legal practitioners and members of the public.

In a statement, the group highlighted the assault of prominent human‑rights lawyer Doug Coltart, who was reportedly attacked and robbed after attending a hearing at the City Sports Centre in Harare. His mobile phone was allegedly stolen and his spectacles damaged.

WELEAD Africa said Coltart has played a key role in simplifying the Bill for ordinary citizens, suggesting his advocacy may have made him a target.

The organisation further alleged that individuals linked to ZANU‑PF — including central committee member Luckmore Tinashe Gapa — were identified among the attackers.

"The assault continued even as Coltart reportedly shouted that his phone had been stolen, with attackers also allegedly hurling insults questioning his nationality," the statement said.

The group also raised concern over an incident in Chiredzi, where activist Gilbert Mutubuki was reportedly assaulted on 30 March and sustained a knife wound to the thigh. Two of his colleagues were said to be missing and feared abducted.

According to WELEAD Africa, similar reports of violence, intimidation and alleged abductions have surfaced across the country, including incidents involving university students participating in the consultations.

The organisation argued that these developments reflect broader challenges to democratic participation, particularly restrictions on freedom of expression as guaranteed under Section 61 of the Constitution. It also claimed that some citizens — especially young people — were denied adequate opportunities to contribute during the hearings.

WELEAD Africa called for accountability and justice for all affected, urging authorities to protect citizens' rights and uphold democratic principles throughout the consultation process.

CAB3 has sparked widespread debate, with critics warning of far‑reaching implications for governance, constitutionalism and civil liberties.