Communities refuse to follow Chiefs’ on Constitutional Amendment Bill endorsement 

Communities across Matabeleland have expressed a mix of resignation, disappointment and anger following the decision by traditional leaders to endorse the ‘controversial’ Constitutional Amendment No. 3 Bill.

The reaction points to deeper concerns about accountability and whether chiefs still reflect the voices of the people they are meant to serve.

On Thursday evening, chiefs from Matabeleland North and South, under the leadership of the National Council of Chiefs, announced their support for the Bill during a brief press conference in Bulawayo.

The endorsement was confirmed by president of National Council of Chiefs, Chief Mtshane Khumalo, who said the traditional leaders had reached a unanimous position.

“We unanimously endorse and support the Constitutional Amendment Number 3 Bill. We will be submitting two or three issues relating to traditional leaders’ enhancement,” said Chief Mtshane, standing alongside Deputy President of the National Chiefs Council, Chief Fortune Charumbira.

He acknowledged senior traditional leaders including Senator Chief Siansali, Chief Sitaudze, Chief Mathuphula, Chief Nyangazonke, Chief Masendu and all chiefs from the two Matabeleland provinces.

The press conference lasted less than two minutes and left more questions than answers after journalists were barred from asking follow‑up questions.

“We are done, no questions,” Chief Mtshane told journalists.

“Go and publish, we have given you news,” Chief Charumbira added, dismissing attempts to seek clarification.

When pressed further, Chief Mtshane responded: “No, no, we have no answers,” while Chief Charumbira insisted: “This is a constitutional amendment, there are no questions. We are just endorsing.”

The abrupt end to the briefing has since fuelled criticism, with many questioning both the transparency of the process and whether chiefs genuinely consulted the communities they represent.

While the endorsement itself did not come as a surprise, following earlier reports by CITE that there was pressure on chiefs to align with the Bill, the manner in which it was delivered has triggered widespread frustration.

The controversy is closely tied to one of the most contentious provisions of the Bill: the proposed repeal of Section 281(2) of the Constitution.

Under the current constitutional framework, traditional leaders are required to remain politically neutral. Chiefs are prohibited from becoming members of political parties, acting in a partisan manner, or advancing political interests.

Clause 20 of the proposed amendment seeks to remove these restrictions, effectively allowing chiefs, headmen and village heads to openly participate in partisan politics.

Their conduct would instead be regulated through an Act of Parliament.

Read:https://cite.org.zw/new-amendment-bill-could-politicise-chiefs/

Some community members accused traditional leaders of abandoning their representative role.

“They were bought by cars a long time ago, so there’s nothing to expect from all those people who received tokens,” said one resident.

Others questioned whether dissenting voices within the institution of traditional leadership were present at the meeting.

“Were there any progressive chiefs in that meeting?” asked another.

A recurring concern is the apparent lack of grassroots consultation.

“Self-representation does not reflect the mind and interests of your subjects. Inkosi yinkosi ngabantu,” said one commentator.

“You hold highly regarded cultural positions within our communities and your support for such documents should be informed by consultations with your people.”

Others interpreted the push for endorsements as a sign of deeper problems.

“The desperation to get everyone to rally behind and endorse this ‘thing’ is a sign that it’s not good. There is no good thing that requires such an aggressive campaign,” said another resident.

Some expressed broader disillusionment with traditional leadership.
“We no longer have the leadership in Matabeleland,” one said.

However, not all reactions were critical.

Writing on his Facebook, Anglistone Sibanda defended the chiefs’ position, arguing that traditional leadership has historically been aligned with political authority.

“Let us face reality, we must never expect our traditional leaders to be political or civic activists who rebel against the establishment. Traditionally, chiefs were appointed based on loyalty. Expecting them to oppose the system may not be realistic,” he said.

Weighing in on the latest development, political analyst, Patrick Ndlovu, said the endorsement raises fundamental questions about constitutional obligations and community trust.

“The current Constitution obliges traditional leaders to remain politically neutral. Endorsing the Bill in its current form compromises their duty to act impartially and represent all members of their communities. Since chiefs are custodians of community cohesion, how will they maintain trust in politically diverse communities?” he asked.

Ndlovu also warned of potential long‑term consequences.

“If the amendment leads to increased political polarisation in rural areas, will chiefs take responsibility for those outcomes?”

Ngqabutho Nicholas Mabhena, General Secretary of the Zimbabwe Communist Party (ZCP), said the developments reflect a disconnect between leadership decisions and community realities.

“It is clear whose interests the chiefs represent in this process. At a time when communities are facing economic pressures such as rising costs of living and strain on social services, how do these constitutional changes improve the lives of ordinary people?”

Mabhena questioned the prioritisation of constitutional reforms over pressing socio‑economic challenges.

“How do the chiefs justify supporting such changes when many rural communities are struggling with access to healthcare, transport and basic services?”

The Constitutional Amendment No. 3 Bill, gazetted in February 2026, continues to generate intense debate across Zimbabwe.

The Bill proposes extending presidential and parliamentary terms from five to seven years and altering the method of electing the President, changes that could allow Emmerson Mnangagwa to remain in office beyond 2028.