Mabiza rejects calls for referendum on CAB3

Virginia Mabiza has dismissed growing calls for a referendum on the proposed Constitution Amendment Bill No. 3 of 2026, insisting there is no legal basis for such demands under Zimbabwe's Constitution.

Speaking to journalists as the 90-day parliamentary consultation and public debate period draws to a close, the Attorney-General said Section 328(6) of the 2013 Constitution clearly outlines the circumstances under which a referendum is required.

"I said it before and I want to insist  -  section 328(6) is deliberate and precise in that it reserves the ultimate democratic veto  -  the national referendum  -  for only three narrowly defined categories of amendment," Mabiza said.

"The constitutional basis for proceeding without a referendum is neither an option nor a loophole. Section 328(6) is very clear on this aspect.

"Any insistence on a referendum given the current scenario is devoid of any meaningful legal basis and logic. It is an unconstitutional demand," she added.

According to Mabiza, a referendum is only constitutionally mandatory when proposed amendments affect Chapter 4 of the Constitution, which deals with the Declaration of Rights, Chapter 16 relating to Agricultural Land, or Section 328 itself, which governs constitutional amendment procedures.

She argued that because Constitution Amendment Bill No. 3 does not seek to alter any of those protected sections, it only requires approval by a two-thirds parliamentary majority rather than a national referendum.

The Attorney-General's remarks have intensified debate surrounding the proposed constitutional amendments, which have drawn criticism from opposition parties, constitutional lawyers, civil society organisations and governance activists.

Critics argue that the 2013 Constitution was adopted through a national referendum involving millions of Zimbabweans and that major constitutional changes  -  particularly those affecting presidential term limits and executive authority  -  should similarly require direct public approval.

Some activists have also questioned whether the Attorney-General, as a presidential appointee, can independently adjudicate on matters perceived to benefit the executive.

However, government officials maintain that the amendment process is fully compliant with constitutional provisions and parliamentary procedures in Zimbabwe.