Constitution of Zimbabwe Amendment (No. 3) Bill

The Bill follows the Constitution of Zimbabwe Amendment (No. 2) Act 2021 and forms part of ongoing efforts by the ZANU–PF-led government to refine the 2013 Constitution. It is closely linked to the ruling party's "2030 agenda", which was adopted at the ZANU–PF annual people's conference in Bulawayo in 2024 and aims to provide long-term political stability and policy continuity for the implementation of Zimbabwe's national development blueprint, Vision 2030. The government has presented the amendments as necessary to reduce "election-related toxicity" and create an enabling environment for sustained economic transformation under Vision 2030, which seeks to turn Zimbabwe into an upper-middle-income economy by 2030.^[8][9]

Cabinet approved the draft on 10 February 2026. Speaker of Parliament gave notice of its publication on 16 February 2026, and it appeared in a Government Gazette Extraordinary the same day. Under section 328 of the Constitution, the Bill must undergo a mandatory 90-day period of public consultation before it can be formally introduced in the National Assembly.^[10]

President Emmerson Mnangagwa has on several occasions described himself as a "constitutionalist" and pledged, including at his 2018 inauguration and in subsequent public statements, to respect the 2013 Constitution and not serve more than the two five-year terms it permits. Despite these commitments, the Bill's transitional provisions would extend the current presidential term from five to seven years, allowing him to remain in office until 2030, instead of 2028 when he is due to leave office under the current provisions.^[4][11]

The Bill (as introduced) contains 21 clauses that amend or repeal various sections of the Constitution. The major proposed changes are as follows:^[12][13]

• Election of the President (Clause 2): Section 92 is repealed and replaced so that the President is elected by members of Parliament in a joint sitting of the Senate and the National Assembly. A candidate must secure more than half the valid votes; if no candidate does so, a run-off is held between the two candidates with the highest votes. The Chief Justice or a designated judge presides, and the procedure follows the Standing Rules and Orders of Parliament.
• Extension of terms of office (Clauses 3, 7 and 8): The term of office of the President (section 95), Parliament (section 143) and local authorities (section 158) is extended from five to seven years. Transitional provisions state that the new seven-year term applies to the continuation in office of the current President, Senate and National Assembly, notwithstanding the general prohibition on retroactive amendment of term limits in section 328(7).
• Senate composition (Clause 6): The Senate is enlarged from 80 to 90 members. The President is empowered to appoint ten additional senators chosen for their professional skills and competencies.
• Electoral matters (Clauses 9–12): A new Zimbabwe Electoral Delimitation Commission is established to take over the delimitation of constituencies and wards from the Zimbabwe Electoral Commission. Responsibility for voter registration and maintenance of the voters’ roll is transferred to the Registrar-General.
• Judicial appointments and jurisdiction (Clauses 13–14): The appointment process for judges is altered so that the President appoints them after consulting the Judicial Service Commission (removing certain public-interview and shortlist requirements). The Constitutional Court is given jurisdiction to hear any other matter involving a point of law of general public importance.
• Repeal of commissions (Clauses 17–18 and 21): The Bill as introduced proposed repealing the Zimbabwe Gender Commission and the National Peace and Reconciliation Commission, with their functions transferred to the Zimbabwe Human Rights Commission. During the National Assembly stage, the provision repealing the Zimbabwe Gender Commission was removed following public representations (including from traditional leaders), and the Commission was retained in the version passed by Parliament.^[14][15]

Other clauses make technical adjustments to the Attorney-General's qualifications, the functions of the Defence Forces, the Prosecutor-General’s appointment and the code of conduct for traditional leaders.

Section 328(4) of the Constitution requires Parliament to invite public views through public meetings and written submissions and to provide adequate facilities for citizens to express their views. Public hearings on the Bill commenced on 30 March 2026 and ran until approximately 2 April 2026—one meeting per administrative district, each lasting under three hours. Written submissions could be sent to the Clerk of Parliament until 17 May 2026.^[16]

The government reported receiving over 500,000 written submissions, claiming an overwhelming majority in support.^[17] Day one of the hearings on 30 March 2026 was marked by venue chaos, overcrowding and political tension, according to observers. In Bulawayo, the City Hall venue proved significantly undersized relative to the large number of attendees. Allegations emerged that many participants had been bussed in from outside the city, raising concerns about the authenticity of public representation. The absence of a standardised, transparent process for selecting speakers from the floor raised concerns about perceived partiality.^[18]

At the Bulawayo City Hall hearing, former cabinet minister and Bulawayo Mayor David Coltart and veteran activist Judith Todd, daughter of former Rhodesian Prime Minister Sir Garfield Todd, were denied the opportunity to speak despite arriving on time and attempting to contribute. Coltart, who sat in the front row and repeatedly raised his hand, stated that the chair "studiously ignored both Judith Todd and me". The meeting was brought to an abrupt end at approximately 11:30, preventing both from presenting their views. Coltart described the incident as a deliberate exclusion that undermined the credibility of the process.^[19]

In Harare, chaos erupted at the City Sports Centre hearing. Human rights lawyer Douglas Coltart (son of David Coltart) was assaulted by suspected ZANU–PF supporters while attempting to leave after trying to make submissions. He was manhandled, his phone and glasses were stolen, and the incident was captured on video. Two ZANU–PF officials — Nicholas Hamadziripi and central committee member Luckmore Tinashe Gapa, a former ZANU-PF parliamentary candidate — were identified in connection with the attack. The assault drew widespread condemnation and calls for accountability.^[20]

Broader concerns have been raised about the compressed nature of the hearings, which were held at district level rather than constituency level and scheduled over just a few days. Independent analysts and constitutional watchdogs argue that this approach fails to meet the constitutional requirement under section 328(4) for meaningful public participation, as each district received only one short meeting (often under three hours) regardless of population size or number of constituencies. They claim this risks producing a process in which minority or managed views are presented as national consensus and increases the potential for intimidation or suppression of dissenting voices.^[21][22]

The Law Society of Zimbabwe, in its May 2026 analysis, highlighted serious legal concerns with several provisions (including the transfer of voter registration functions, the new delimitation commission, expanded presidential appointment powers over judges and the Prosecutor-General, and the application of term extensions to incumbents) while noting that some changes, such as the shift to parliamentary election of the President, were not substantively unconstitutional though they dilute direct democratic participation. It emphasised that term-limit changes applying to current office-holders require a referendum under section 328(9).^[23]

Legal challenges contesting procedural aspects of the Bill’s introduction were filed in the Constitutional Court. These included applications by activists represented by Lovemore Madhuku questioning the validity of Cabinet’s approval process and by former Member of Parliament Prince Dubeko Sibanda challenging specific clauses as inconsistent with section 328 of the Constitution. On 17 June 2026 the Constitutional Court struck off two such challenges (without determining the merits), ruling that the issues should first be ventilated in the High Court.^[24][25][26]

Following the conclusion of the public consultation period, the Bill was formally presented and read a first time in the National Assembly on or around 2 June 2026 by the Minister of Justice, Legal and Parliamentary Affairs, Ziyambi Ziyambi.^[27] The second reading and committee stages took place in early to mid-June 2026, with debates focusing on the proposed shift from direct presidential elections, term extensions, electoral reforms, and the repeal of commissions. During the National Assembly committee stage, the Bill was amended to retain the Zimbabwe Gender Commission (originally proposed for repeal), following representations including from traditional leaders and public submissions highlighting its importance for gender equality. The National Assembly passed the Bill at its final (third) reading on 18 June 2026 by 216 votes to 42 — comfortably exceeding the two-thirds majority (187 votes) required by section 328(5) of the Constitution.^[28][29][30]

The Bill proceeded to the Senate, where it underwent second reading on 23–24 June and third reading on 24 June 2026. It was passed by 75 votes to 4 (with one abstention), again exceeding the required two-thirds majority. The Senate version incorporated the National Assembly amendments, including retention of the Gender Commission.^[31][32]

As of 26 June 2026, the Bill awaits presidential assent by President Mnangagwa. The government maintains that no referendum is required, citing legal advice from the Attorney-General. Opposition parties, civil society groups and some constitutional experts argue that provisions altering presidential term limits and the method of electing the President are entrenched and require approval by a majority of voters in a referendum under section 328.^[33][34]

The government and ZANU–PF have welcomed the Bill as a modernisation measure that will reduce "election-related toxicity", allow more time for development projects and bring Zimbabwe into line with practices in other African democracies. The official memorandum accompanying the Bill describes the proposed changes as "constructive reforms" that "reinforce constitutional governance, strengthen democratic structures, clarify institutional mandates" and harmonise Zimbabwe’s constitutional order with "tested and successful practices in other progressive jurisdictions".^[35] Permanent Secretary in the Ministry of Information Nick Mangwana described the process as a "legitimate legislative exercise" aimed at enhancing political stability and policy continuity, rejecting claims of a "constitutional coup" and stating there is no legal requirement for a referendum.^[36]

Supporters, including the ZANU–PF Youth League and some traditional leaders, have described the Bill as promoting stability and national development, arguing the changes are essential for long-term policy continuity and the successful implementation of major infrastructure and economic projects under Vision 2030.^[37] Opposition parties have strongly criticised the Bill. Leaders from the Citizens Coalition for Change (CCC), including Tendai Biti and Jameson Timba, have described the amendments as an attempt to centralise power in the executive, diminish the role of the electorate in choosing the President and undermine institutional independence. Douglas Mwonzora of the MDC Alliance and other opposition figures have similarly condemned the proposals. Following passage, opposition and civil society groups labelled the outcome a "constitutional coup" that strips citizens of the right to directly elect the President and replaces popular sovereignty with selection by a captured legislature.^[38][39]

Civil society groups have expressed strong concerns. The National Constitutional Assembly (NCA), the Constitutional Defenders Forum (convened by Tendai Biti), Zimbabwe Lawyers for Human Rights and the Zimbabwe Peace Project have warned that the amendments erode the democratic gains of the 2013 Constitution, weaken checks and balances, and that the compressed public hearing process — combined with reports of intimidation and violence — undermined meaningful participation. They continue to call for the Bill to be subjected to a referendum.^[40] Legal experts have been particularly vocal. Constitutional lawyer and NCA leader Professor Lovemore Madhuku has described the proposed amendments as "totally unacceptable" and filed court applications challenging procedural validity, stating that the movers have "no respect for the people". Human rights lawyer and constitutional analyst D. Tinashé Hofisi has characterised the Bill as "executive consolidation by constitutional disruption", arguing that it weakens public participation in presidential selection and undermines the separation of powers. The Law Society of Zimbabwe’s detailed analysis raised serious concerns about several clauses while affirming that term extensions for incumbents require a referendum.^[4][41]

International observers and human rights organisations, including Amnesty International, expressed concern ahead of the public hearings about guarantees of free expression and safety. Post-passage commentary in outlets such as The Guardian has highlighted opposition fears of a return to more repressive governance and the tightening of executive control.^[42]