News / National
Coltart slams Attorney General over constitutional amendment interpretation
8 hrs ago |
611 Views
Bulawayo Mayor David Coltart has sharply criticised Attorney‑General Virginia Mabhiza, accusing her of misinterpreting key constitutional provisions in a manner he says undermines democratic safeguards.
In a strongly worded statement, Coltart described Mabhiza’s legal opinion as “shocking and disingenuous”, arguing that it selectively focuses on Section 328(6) of the Constitution while ignoring critical subsections that follow.
Coltart highlighted Sections 328(7), (8) and (9), which he said clearly stipulate that a referendum is required if any constitutional amendment has the effect of extending the tenure of an incumbent office holder. He stressed that Section 328(9) explicitly states that amendments affecting incumbency provisions must be treated “as if” they were part of Chapter 4, thereby triggering the need for a public vote.
“The Attorney‑General’s argument that no referendum is necessary because Chapter 4 is not being amended is misleading,” Coltart said. “The Constitution is clear that such changes must be subjected to a referendum if they extend the time an incumbent remains in office.”
He further argued that the proposed amendments would, in effect, prolong the terms of the current President, Members of Parliament and local authority councillors, making a referendum constitutionally mandatory.
Coltart also criticised the state media, urging The Herald to fulfil its watchdog role by questioning the Attorney‑General on the applicability of the overlooked provisions.
“When senior lawyers ignore obvious provisions of the law, it brings the entire legal profession into disrepute,” he said. “Likewise, when journalists fail to challenge such omissions, they undermine the credibility of their own profession.”
The remarks come amid intensifying debate over the proposed constitutional amendments, with legal experts and political actors divided on their implications for governance and democratic accountability in Zimbabwe.
In a strongly worded statement, Coltart described Mabhiza’s legal opinion as “shocking and disingenuous”, arguing that it selectively focuses on Section 328(6) of the Constitution while ignoring critical subsections that follow.
Coltart highlighted Sections 328(7), (8) and (9), which he said clearly stipulate that a referendum is required if any constitutional amendment has the effect of extending the tenure of an incumbent office holder. He stressed that Section 328(9) explicitly states that amendments affecting incumbency provisions must be treated “as if” they were part of Chapter 4, thereby triggering the need for a public vote.
“The Attorney‑General’s argument that no referendum is necessary because Chapter 4 is not being amended is misleading,” Coltart said. “The Constitution is clear that such changes must be subjected to a referendum if they extend the time an incumbent remains in office.”
He further argued that the proposed amendments would, in effect, prolong the terms of the current President, Members of Parliament and local authority councillors, making a referendum constitutionally mandatory.
Coltart also criticised the state media, urging The Herald to fulfil its watchdog role by questioning the Attorney‑General on the applicability of the overlooked provisions.
“When senior lawyers ignore obvious provisions of the law, it brings the entire legal profession into disrepute,” he said. “Likewise, when journalists fail to challenge such omissions, they undermine the credibility of their own profession.”
The remarks come amid intensifying debate over the proposed constitutional amendments, with legal experts and political actors divided on their implications for governance and democratic accountability in Zimbabwe.
Source - Byo24news
Join the discussion
Loading comments…
