HARARE – Presidential spokesperson George Charamba has mounted a vigorous defence of the proposed Constitutional Amendment No. 3 Bill, dismissing criticism from opposition groups and sections of civil society as “gratuitous disinformation” and insisting the reform process is both lawful and routine.
Speaking in a wide-ranging interview, Charamba—who serves as Deputy Chief Secretary for Presidential Communications in the Office of the President and Cabinet—sought to reframe the national debate, arguing that the proposed changes do not amount to a wholesale overhaul of Zimbabwe’s supreme law but rather a targeted adjustment in line with governance needs.
Government dismisses “misinformation” claims
Charamba rejected assertions that the amendment represents a fundamental rupture in Zimbabwe’s constitutional order, stating that critics were deliberately mischaracterising the process.
“We are amending the Constitution; we are not changing or throwing away the current Constitution,” he said, adding that public alarm over the Bill was based on “cheap talk” and false premises.
Presidential spokesperson Mr George Charamba has launched a robust defence of the proposed Constitutional Amendment No. 3 Bill, dismissing as “gratuitous disinformation” the views of those in the opposition and arguing that constitutional amendments are a routine and necessary… pic.twitter.com/TEqJHSqkMJ
— The Herald Zimbabwe (@HeraldZimbabwe) April 13, 2026
He emphasised that the very designation “Amendment No. 3” reflects continuity, noting that previous amendments have already been made to the Constitution of Zimbabwe without triggering comparable backlash.
According to Charamba, constitutions are inherently dynamic instruments designed to evolve alongside societal and political developments.
Historical precedent cited to justify reforms
In defending the amendment, Charamba drew extensively on Zimbabwe’s constitutional history, tracing the evolution of governing frameworks from colonial rule through to independence and the modern era.
He referenced legal instruments imposed under the British South Africa Company in the late 19th century, successive Orders in Council, and later constitutional frameworks including the 1923 and 1961 constitutions.
Charamba also pointed to the Unilateral Declaration of Independence period, the internal settlement of 1978–79, and the Lancaster House Agreement, before culminating in the adoption of the 2013 Constitution.
He argued that this historical trajectory demonstrates that constitutional change is neither unusual nor illegitimate, but rather a consistent feature of Zimbabwe’s political development.
Debate over presidential election system
One of the most contentious provisions in the proposed amendment is the suggestion that the President could be elected by Parliament rather than through a direct popular vote.
Charamba dismissed claims that such a move would amount to the erosion of democratic rights, arguing that Zimbabwe has previously operated under a different system.
He cited the tenure of Canaan Banana, who served as a ceremonial head of state and was not directly elected by the public. The shift to an executive presidency with direct elections, he said, was a uniquely Zimbabwean political choice rather than an international standard.
Charamba further argued that the current system has, over time, contributed to political polarisation and strained national cohesion, making it legitimate for Zimbabweans to reconsider its effectiveness.
Legislative process framed as democratic
The presidential spokesperson stressed that the amendment is progressing through established constitutional channels, beginning with Cabinet approval and moving into parliamentary processes.
He highlighted the ongoing public consultation phase, in which citizens are invited to submit their views for or against the Bill. Parliament, he said, will ultimately determine the outcome based on the weight of public submissions.
“It is unconscionable to indict a legislative procedure at this stage,” Charamba said, urging Zimbabweans to participate in the process rather than dismiss it outright.
Parliament has set a 90-day consultation window, with the deadline for submissions extended to mid-May 2026.
Sovereignty and international dimension
Charamba also rejected comparisons between the amendment process and past unilateral political actions, describing such analogies as “fatuous.”
He drew attention to remarks from the United Kingdom, which he said had characterised the constitutional reform process as a sovereign matter for Zimbabweans.
The acknowledgement by Britain, he argued, reinforces the principle that constitutional change falls within the exclusive domain of national decision-making.
Political context and implications
The proposed Constitutional Amendment No. 3 Bill, gazetted in February 2026, also includes provisions to extend the presidential term and the life of Parliament by two years—measures that have intensified political debate.
Analysts say the reforms come at a sensitive time in Zimbabwe’s political landscape, where questions around governance, succession, and institutional authority remain highly contested.
While the government maintains that the amendment is a technical and democratic exercise, critics argue that its implications could significantly reshape the country’s political architecture.
As public hearings continue, the outcome of the consultation process is expected to play a decisive role in determining whether the proposed changes proceed—setting the stage for one of the most consequential constitutional debates in Zimbabwe’s recent history.
The post Charamba Defends Constitutional Amendment, Dismisses Criticism as Disinformation appeared first on The Zimbabwe Mail.