Source: Govt debunks three ‘myths’ on Constitution changes – herald
Fungi Kwaramba
National Editor
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 part of governance.
In a wide-ranging interview on the proposed amendment, Mr Charamba, who serves as Deputy Chief Secretary-Presidential Communications in the Office of the President and Cabinet, sought to debunk “myths” surrounding the amendment process.
Mr Charamba rejected characterisations of the amendment as a radical departure from constitutional order, saying the country is amending, not discarding, its supreme law.
“There is a lot of disinformation, some of it quite gratuitous, by those who are opposed to the amendment. We are amending the Constitution; we are not changing or throwing away the current Constitution, and I think there is a difference. So this whole hullabaloo about chewing the Constitution, throwing the Constitution in the bin and that kind of stuff is all cheap talk,” he said.
Mr Charamba said, “Amendment number three means there are two other amendments that precede it,” and questioned the “whole hullabaloo about chewing the Constitution, throwing the Constitution in the bin.”
“This is a mere amendment of the Constitution, and the fact that it is Amendment No. 3 means there are two other amendments that precede it. So really, there is nothing unusual about the exercise which is underway.
“The second myth which one wants to debunk has to do with a false attempt to protect and defend the Constitution as if it’s a dear baby which is about to be killed by those with evil intentions. Constitutions are not immutable.
“Constitutions are made by people and they are meant for the people and in any event that matter doesn’t even arise. We are not writing a new Constitution; we are amending the existing one and amending it only in respect of selective aspects of it. So really to try and raise a hue and cry over the immutability alleged of constitutions is to, in fact, argue from a false premise,” said Mr Charamba.
Drawing on Zimbabwe’s constitutional history, Mr Charamba traced the evolution of the country’s governing instruments from 1890 through successive orders in council, the 1923 constitution, the 1961 constitution, the Unilateral Declaration of Independence era, the internal settlement of 1978-79, the Lancaster House agreement and ultimately the 2013 Constitution.
“Constitutions are changed, are written, are adopted and just for your own information, let’s look back at history. In 1890, it was the BSA Company’s law, company law, which reigned in this country as a colonial product.
“In 1894, after the fall of the Ndebele kingdom, we had the Matabeleland Order in Council. This was then meant to be the governing instrument for the newly conquered region of Matabeleland. Come 1898, we then had an amalgamation of those legal instruments to create a new legal instrument which governed the whole colonial territory of Rhodesia, hence the Southern Rhodesia Order in Council.
“This is 1898. Already in that very short period between 1890 and 1898, we have three distinct constitutional stages, suggesting that, yes indeed, the governing instrument changes in line with the aspirations and the trajectory of a polity.
“Come 1923, we had yet another one where the Rhodesians, white Rhodesians, did not want to be an appendage of the Republic of South Africa, apartheid South Africa then.
“They wanted to be a self-governing body and to that extent they also developed their own constitution, which was the constitution instrument number four between 1890 and 1923,” he said.
“By the time we then get to 2013, the Lancaster Constitution was the most amended Constitution Zimbabwe has ever experienced and that tells you the pressures of governance, the pressures of our citizen aspirations and how these were translating into further amendments and changes to the Constitution, so let’s move away dear Zimbabweans from this myth of thinking that the Constitution is immutable, it is a document which changes as and when the governing milieu changes to ensure that it is always an expression of the aspirations of the people.
“So there should not be any debate about constitutional changes, let alone amendments, which are just a minuscule part within a broader document we call a Constitution. From the perspective of our Government, this is a normal process, this is an ordinary process, which, all things being equal, should not be a basis for contention in this country,” he said.
Mr Charamba also detailed the amendment’s genealogy, tracing its origin from “the intention or a wish of the youth” that “morphs into an intention of a province” and then spreads across all 10 provinces before coalescing “to become the intention of a political party.”
He described how Cabinet approval made the Bill part of the Government’s legislative agenda, binding civil servants, before moving to parliamentary public consultation.
“Right now we moved from Cabinet decision to the tabling of the Bill in Parliament, and the whole idea being that Parliament must then solicit for views from members of the public whether for or against with a view to ensuring that ultimately the decision that our Parliament then takes is consistent with the wishes of the majority of the Zimbabwean people, that is the stage where we are now.
“I find it a bit unconscionable for anyone to try and indict a legislative procedure, which is where we are now. Parliament has invited members of the public to air their views, to ventilate their views in respect of the Constitutional Amendment No. 3 Bill.
“Go and make your ideas felt, go and register your feelings in respect of that process, whether for or against.
“That you are against the Bill does not give primacy to your ideas it simply means this is your own view which must contend with a myriad other views which are being expressed by Zimbabweans and ultimately Parliament will then have to glean through all those submissions and say hey on the basis of the consultation that we did we think this Amendment must proceed or must not proceed depending of course on the weight of evidence that is what we are all waiting for and that is democratic,” said Mr Charamba.
The proposed Constitution of Zimbabwe Amendment (No. 3) Bill, 2026, was published in a Gazette Extraordinary on February 16, 2026.
Among other things, the Bill proposes that “the President should be elected by Parliament rather than by voters in a general election, that the President’s term of office, and the life of Parliament, should be extended by two years.
Addressing concerns that removing direct presidential elections would amount to “usurpation of voting rights,” Mr Charamba recalled that between 1980 and 1987, Zimbabwe’s first President, Reverend Canaan Banana, was ceremonial and not directly elected.
The shift to an executive presidency, he noted, was a decision “unique to Zimbabwe” and “not a constitutional precept or a best practise from elsewhere in the world.”
As such, Mr Charamba said that Zimbabweans should be free to debate whether “this system serves us well” and cautioned against running “ahead of that debate” to present apocalyptic scenarios.
“The third myth which I want to explore relates to what is termed usurpation of voting rights from the public by transferring the election of the President to Parliament.
“I wonder whether this is just sheer mischief or short memory amnesia, if you are one of those who were old enough to participate and follow proceedings of 2013 you will know that even after the referendum that outcome of the referendum still had to be processed through Parliament.
“What that means is that a referendum does not usurp the power of Parliament, it simply provides a popular basis for legislative action otherwise at law the body which is recognised as responsible for any changes, be they at the level of the primary law or at the level of subsidiary laws, is Parliament, so really you can’t place the referendum in apposition to Parliament you can’t, because the referendum does not give you a result that writes the Constitution it is Parliament which is mandated to do so in terms of our laws so really there shouldn’t be any argument at all in respect of that matter.
“We move on to the next issue, to do with the election of the President, again, is it a matter of mischief or short memories. I served under the first President of Zimbabwe, Reverend Canaan Banana; it was not even an issue in electoral terms because he was ceremonial.
“Again, I served under the Second President of Zimbabwe, this time, who was now the executive, and this was about 1988. It is at that point that there was some argument to say to the extent that a President makes executive decisions would it be indeed better for us to then broaden and deepen our sense of democracy by ensuring that he too holds an elective office, this was unique to Zimbabwe, it was not a constitutional precept or a best practise from elsewhere in the world because there are very few countries where presidents are elected directly, very few countries if you want to mention them, so really it’s a decision which Zimbabweans did.
Mr Charamba said the experiment with direct election of the President has, in the past decades, proved to impede national cohesion.
“From 1988 moving to 2023 right we have seen what having an elective presidency does to national cohesion, does to electoral politics in this country and this same country which made the President’s elective is now debating whether or not this system serves us well, that is the debate, which outcome we are waiting for and for anyone to try and run ahead of that debate to try and give us a hellfire vision of what would happen if the elective element is dropped, I mean that is just too gratuitous, let’s wait for the consultation process let’s get the outcome and let the majority prevail and then we proceed accordingly.
“The upshot of it is that there is nothing unusual about what is happening presently and let me state this is not the Constitution which is being changed, it is an aspect of it which is being amended and not the first one and not even the last one”.
Furthermore, Mr Charamba dismissed comparisons of the amendment process to Ian Smith’s 1965 Unilateral Declaration of Independence as “fatuous,” arguing that UDI arose from “Rhodesia Front’s complete repudiation of a non-racial, independence order,” whereas the current process involves parliamentary public hearings and constitutional procedure.
He also noted with approval that the United Kingdom — “one of the oldest states we have in the world” — has declared the matter “a sovereign question for the Zimbabwean people.”
“I am so happy that there is one foreign government which has since pronounced itself on the matter right and Britain, a country which doesn’t have a Constitution, has made this position very clear and known to all and sundry. The Minister in charge of Overseas Development made it very clear that the issue, to do with the Constitution and all the amendments that are deemed necessary, is a sovereign question for the Zimbabwean people. This is a voice from one of the oldest states we have in the world, where are we getting it wrong?”
The ongoing process, Mr Charamba said, is democratic, noting that public hearings are ongoing with a 90-day consultation window.
Parliament has extended the deadline for submissions to 17 May 2026.
The post Govt debunks three ‘myths’ on Constitution changes appeared first on Zimbabwe Situation.