Zim News Blog -NEWS NETWORK

Tendai Ruben Mbofana

The frantic rush to railroad the Constitutional Amendment (No. 3) Bill, known as CAB3, through the Parliament of Zimbabwe has exposed a profound and terrifying assault on the foundational pillars of our constitutional democracy.

If you value my social justice advocacy and writing, please consider a financial contribution to keep it going. Contact me on WhatsApp: +263 715 667 700 or Email: mbofana.tendairuben73@gmail.com

At the heart of this unfolding tragedy is a calculated, deeply dishonest attempt by the ruling ZANU-PF government to redefine what the “will of the people” actually means.

By parading the recent findings of the Parliamentary Portfolio Committee on Justice, Legal and Parliamentary Affairs—which claimed an astonishing and highly dubious 537,000 public submissions in favor of the bill—as a blanket democratic mandate, the authorities are engaging in a fundamental, deliberate misreading of constitutional processes.

This is not a celebration of a maturing democracy, as ZANU-PF apologists loudly proclaim; it is a clinical exercise in manufacturing consent to mask a deep-seated fear of the genuine popular will.

The deception relies entirely on conflating two completely distinct constitutional mechanisms.

Section 328 of the Constitution of Zimbabwe explicitly provides for both public consultations and a national referendum because the framers of our supreme law recognized that they serve entirely different purposes and are absolutely not interchangeable.

​A public consultation process under Section 328(4) is an advisory, qualitative exercise meant to foster debate, gather diverse perspectives, and allow citizens to flag concerns or suggest refinements to a bill before legislators debate it.

Instead, this process was completely broken by design.

​Parliament squeezed the physical public hearings into a meager four days, scattering a tiny handful of venues across the country and effectively excluding millions of Zimbabweans.

At the same time, they restricted written input largely to email submissions or physical delivery to the Parliament building in Mt. Hampden.

This structurally shut out those without access to modern technologies or the means to travel hundreds of kilometers—who make up the bulk of the population, particularly in rural areas.

By its very nature, this deliberately restrictive and compromised layout left the open forums completely vulnerable to political manipulation, intimidation, and bussed-in ruling party loyalists.

​A national referendum under Section 328(6), however, is a quantitative, binding democratic mechanism that introduces an element entirely absent from public hearings: absolute secrecy.

A referendum is not a town hall meeting; it is a nationwide election anchored by the secret ballot, a sacred democratic shield designed specifically to protect the individual from intimidation, surveillance, and consequence.

The Constitution mandates this secret process precisely because it guarantees that the result is an uncoerced, mathematically precise measurement of the popular will.

To use the sheer volume of submissions gathered during a deeply flawed consultation process as a substitute for a referendum is a legal and moral absurdity.

During the ongoing parliamentary debates, ZANU-PF MPs have repeatedly pointed to these numbers to support their claims.

They argue that ordinary citizens are practically begging to extend presidential and parliamentary terms from five to seven years.

Furthermore, they are using these figures to justify stripping away the direct popular election of the president in favor of a parliamentary selection system.

This is a grotesque distortion of reality.

The nationwide public hearings were notoriously stage-managed, choreographed, and militarized.

Watchdog groups and independent media documented how ruling party loyalists were bussed into venues to drown out dissenting voices, while ordinary citizens were compelled to sign pre-printed forms endorsing amendments they likely never understood.

A pile of mass-produced, coerced signatures collected under the watchful eyes of local party enforcers does not equal public endorsement; it equals administrative intimidation.

The government is fully aware of this distinction, yet they pretend not to be.

Their frantic efforts to avoid a national referendum are born out of a stark, shivering fear of the secret ballot.

The secret ballot is the ultimate equalizer in a democracy.

Within the privacy of the voting booth, away from the surveillance of state security apparatuses and party monitors, a citizen is shielded from coercion and consequence.

That is where the true will of the people resides.

ZANU-PF knows that in a free, fair, and unchoreographed referendum, the Zimbabwean populace would overwhelmingly reject an amendment designed solely to consolidate executive power and extend the incumbency of the political elite.

This is nothing short of a constitutional heist.

This paralyzing fear of the uncoerced voice is mirrored within the very walls of Parliament.

The regime has steadfastly refused requests for parliamentarians to vote on CAB3 via a secret ballot.

If the ruling party were truly confident that these amendments represented a genuine national consensus and a progressive path forward, they would have no reason to fear anonymity.

Instead, they require open, visible voting to ensure that the party whipping system remains ironclad, forcing MPs to choose between political survival and their constitutional conscience.

By denying both the citizens a national referendum and the lawmakers a secret ballot, the executive has ensured that the entire legislative process surrounding CAB3 takes place in an environment completely stripped of genuine democratic freedom.

We must call this process what it is: a fraudulent substitution of state-sponsored theater for actual democratic consensus.

The 537,000 submissions touted by the parliamentary committee are a monument to organizational coercion, not a mandate for dictatorship.

True sovereignty belongs to the people of Zimbabwe, and that sovereignty cannot be bartered away through choreographed town halls or forced signatures on pre-printed templates.

By intentionally avoiding the constitutional master key of a national referendum, the government has conceded its own illegitimacy on this issue.

A constitution is a sacred social contract between the state and the citizens, meant to limit power, not to be rewritten at a whim to extend it.

Any attempt to alter the fundamental structure of our governance without a secret ballot is invalid. It is an authoritarian imposition.

The people of Zimbabwe must reject it with the contempt it deserves.

• Tendai Ruben Mbofana is a social justice advocate and writer. To directly receive his articles please join his WhatsApp Channel on: https://whatsapp.com/channel/0029VaqprWCIyPtRnKpkHe08

The Zimbabwe Constitutional Movement (ZICOMO) demands that every Member of Parliament cast their vote with their conscience when the Constitutional Amendment Number 3 (2026) is presented today.

This issue transcends politics; it is about our legacy.

MPs must remember why they sit in parliament. They are representatives of the people—those who crafted the 2013 Constitution, rejected life presidency, and entrenched term limits to protect democracy from personal rule.

The Constitution is deliberate and clear:

Any amendment to term limits must be subjected to a referendum as outlined in Section 328. Parliament cannot usurp the will of the people. No MP has the right to amend the Constitution for personal gain. Self-serving amendments represent a betrayal of public trust.

Today, we will witness who truly represents the interests of the people and who is waiting for an opportunity to betray them for personal gain.

ZICOMO expresses disgust that some opposition MPs have already chosen convenience over principle, as demonstrated during the parliamentary debates. They are compromising their integrity and selling out the Constitution at the altar of political convenience. This is a betrayal.

Let us make this categorically and abundantly clear: Zimbabwe is not for sale.

Individuals come and go. Mnangagwa will eventually leave. ZANU PF will go at some point. But Zimbabwe remains. Constitutions are not written for presidents; they are written to protect nations from presidents who abuse power.

Whether parliament passes Bill No. 3 or not, this fight does not end in the chamber. If MPs betray the people, ZICOMO will take the fight to the people. We will intensify grassroots mobilisation. We will pursue legal action. We will defend the Constitution by every means available.

Now is the time for Zimbabweans to unite. Unity across politics, gender, race and class. We must protect our future from a parliamentary and ruling elite determined to seize it.

Victory is certain! Aluta Continua!

Tendai Ruben Mbofana

The spectacle of opposition members of parliament suddenly turning their backs on the very electorate that risked life and limb to vote them into office has become a sickeningly familiar routine in Zimbabwe politics.

If you value my social justice advocacy and writing, please consider a financial contribution to keep it going. Contact me on WhatsApp: +263 715 667 700 or Email: mbofana.tendairuben73@gmail.com

The recent public capitulation of Susan Matsunga, who brazenly accepted a vehicle and $50,000 from a controversial ruling party benefactor while singing praises to President Emmerson Mnangagwa, is just the latest symptom of a much deeper, malignant rot.

As the country watches the ongoing parliamentary debate on the Constitutional Amendment (No. 3) Bill, which seeks to undemocratically stretch elected terms to seven years, more opposition faces are lining up to rubber-stamp the agenda of the oppressive ruling elite.

This is not a sudden lapse in judgment by a few weak-willed individuals.

It is the logical, inevitable outcome of a political system within the opposition camp that actively prefers superficial sycophants over principled leaders.

When these politicians defect or quietly betray their mandates in exchange for material gifts and political survival, the public naturally explodes in anger, labeling them sell outs.

However, if we are to genuinely interrogate this crisis, we must look beyond the immediate greed of the individuals involved.

Firstly, we need to understand a key fact: sycophancy is never rooted in principle; it is driven entirely by self-interest and personal ambition.

Many a leader has mistaken hero-worship for loyalty and devotion.

These opportunists weaponize excessive praise-singing to deliberately prey upon the deep-seated insecurities and weakness of the leadership, using flattery to curry favor and rapidly manipulate their way up the political ladder.

The loyalty that these characters display during election campaigns is completely skin-deep, offered only as long as it serves as a means to state power, parliamentary perks, and financial comfort.

It is never driven by principle or an unflinching belief in a cause, but purely by self-interest.

The moment the ruling elite dangles a more lucrative carrot, or applies enough state pressure, the sycophant does what they have always done, which is to look out for number one.

To be surprised when a sycophant switches sides is to misunderstand the very nature of a political opportunist.

The real question we must confront is how these compromised individuals were ever selected to represent the democratic aspirations of millions of Zimbabweans in the first place.

When an MP betrays the struggle, we should not be quick to blame them alone.

We must courageously turn the mirror upon the opposition movement itself and ask why these people were chosen to hold the line against a ruthless dictatorial regime.

The uncomfortable truth is that our political culture has become deeply hostile to independent thought, robust debate, and unyielding integrity.

True principles are inconvenient to those at the helm of political organizations, because principled people cannot be micro-managed, and they will not stay silent when the leadership makes a wrong turn.

Let me be brutally honest right now.

If ever I am to align myself with a political party – an act I have avoided like the plague for my entire life, and one I have never made a secret of – my commitment would be entirely to the struggle for justice in Zimbabwe.

It would never be to a political leader, as much as I will give them their due respect.

However, should I see that they are now veering off course and betraying the ethos of the struggle, I will not hesitate to call them out openly and without fear.

The cause is bigger than the leader; a cause I have dedicated thirty-five years of my life to.

Instead, opposition leadership structures have consistently favored individuals whose only qualification is an ability to praise the party hierarchy without question.

This revealing dynamic exposes a profound insecurity within the leadership itself, unmasking an appetite for absolute power that mirrors the very ruling party they claim to fight.

A leadership that is terrified of internal criticism will always surround itself with yes-men and yes-women, mistaking blind obedience for revolutionary commitment.

By systematically shutting out fierce truth-tellers and elevating malleable praise-singers, the opposition has built its house on a foundation of sand.

They have deliberately selected candidates based on their capacity for self-interest, and then they act shocked when those same individuals follow the money to the highest bidder in the corridors of state power.

Yet, it is these very side-lined principled members, standing firmly on uncompromising truth, who possess the deepest loyalty—not to individual leaders, but to the struggle itself—and would never betray the masses who cast their votes for them.

This systemic failure has catastrophic consequences for the broader struggle for socio-economic justice in Zimbabwe.

When opposition MPs facilitate the passage of the Constitutional Amendment (No. 3) Bill, they are effectively dismantling the remaining remnants of democratic governance, ensuring that accountability is pushed even further out of reach for ordinary citizens.

The voter in Redcliff, Harare, or Bulawayo, who stood in queues for hours facing state intimidation, is left completely abandoned.

They watch in absolute horror as their votes are converted into a commodity, traded on the open market for luxury vehicles and thousands of dollars in cash.

This blatant betrayal completely erodes public confidence in the entire electoral process, making it nearly impossible to mobilize citizens who now rightly feel that the political system is rigged from both sides.

Breaking this vicious cycle requires a complete and uncompromising overhaul of how leadership is defined and selected within the democratic movement.

Zimbabwe cannot afford any more careerist politicians whose loyalty shifts with the wind.

The opposition must cultivate a political environment where robust debate is celebrated, and where leaders are chosen for their unyielding track record of community service, intellectual depth, and moral clarity.

We must stop being uncomfortable with those who speak the truth, even when that truth is painful to hear.

Until the opposition values integrity over unquestioning loyalty, its benches will remain populated by mercenary politicians who are simply waiting for their turn to sell out the aspirations of the suffering Zimbabwean majority.

• Tendai Ruben Mbofana is a social justice advocate and writer. To directly receive his articles please join his WhatsApp Channel on: https://whatsapp.com/channel/0029VaqprWCIyPtRnKpkHe08