Zanu-PF says it is not afraid of CAB3 referendum

ZANU-PF has dismissed suggestions that the proposed Constitution of Zimbabwe Amendment Bill No. 3 (CAB3) should be subjected to a referendum, arguing that the Constitution does not require a plebiscite for the changes being proposed.

The party's Director of Information and Publicity, Farai Marapira, said the ruling party was not opposed to a referendum in principle but was guided by the provisions of the Constitution.

Speaking during Star FM's current affairs programme Muriro on Monday, Marapira said the consultative processes conducted so far were adequate and fully compliant with constitutional requirements.

"As ZANU-PF, we have never refused to go to a referendum, but as a party, we work within the parameters of the law," he said.

"If one is to look at the dictates of the Constitution of 2013, these issues that are at hand do not require the implementation of a plebiscite.

"But this process that we have done is enough, and to my understanding, this issue was before the courts. This is our stance as ZANU-PF; not that we have any fear of a plebiscite, but it's just that we work within the parameters of the law."

Marapira maintained that the party had complied with both the spirit and letter of the Constitution and said the proposed amendments were intended to improve governance and institutional effectiveness.

According to him, the Bill seeks to strengthen accountability mechanisms within government, reduce constitutional ambiguities and create a governance framework that supports the country's Vision 2030 development agenda.

He also defended the public consultation process surrounding the Bill, describing it as inclusive and reflective of citizen participation.

"Public input has been actively sought through parliamentary hearings and stakeholder engagements. We are very elated with the turnout and the number of submissions," he said.

"This has shown that there has been wide uptake, wide discussion and wide contribution by the people of Zimbabwe towards this Bill."

Marapira acknowledged that there was always room for improvement, particularly regarding civic education, but insisted the consultation process had been sufficiently broad.

Also participating in the discussion was Eddison Zvobgo, who defended one of the Bill's most debated proposals - allowing Parliament to elect a President under certain circumstances.

Zvobgo argued that parliamentary selection of national leaders was not uncommon internationally and cited examples from other democratic systems.

"In terms of the election of the President, I must say that it is a misconception that there's only one type of democracy," he said.

He pointed to the United Kingdom's parliamentary system, where governing parties select their leaders, and referenced the United States electoral system, noting that presidential candidates can win office without securing the majority of the popular vote.

Zvobgo further argued that allowing Parliament to elect a President would significantly reduce the financial burden associated with conducting elections.

"The decision to allow Parliament to vote for the President will reduce costs incredibly," he said.

He added that Zimbabwe had previously amended electoral laws without objections to the constitutional process followed.

Addressing calls for a referendum, Zvobgo noted that the issue was currently before the courts and therefore sub judice. However, he reiterated Parliament's position that a referendum was unnecessary.

"Our view as Parliament was that there is no need for a referendum because we are extending the electoral cycle," he said.

Opposition concerns were also raised during the programme by Edwin Mushoriwa, who expressed reservations about several provisions contained in the Bill.

Mushoriwa said he opposed proposals to transfer voter registration responsibilities from the Zimbabwe Electoral Commission (ZEC) to the Registrar-General's Office. He also questioned plans to establish a separate delimitation body outside the electoral commission.

The proposed constitutional amendments have generated significant debate across Zimbabwe's political landscape. Supporters argue that the reforms will enhance governance efficiency, reduce costs and improve institutional effectiveness.

Critics, however, contend that some of the proposed changes could have far-reaching implications for the country's democratic processes and should be subjected to broader public consultation and scrutiny.

With legal challenges still before the courts and parliamentary debate continuing, CAB3 remains one of the most closely watched legislative proposals in Zimbabwe's current political environment.