Bete 𝕏 

The Constitution Is Not a Riddle. Stop Pretending It Is. Some people have taken to social media with long, numbered posts full of legal-sounding definitions, hoping that complexity alone will pass for argument. It will not. Let us make this simple. The 2013 Constitution of Zimbabwe was written by Zimbabweans, for Zimbabweans. It was not written to confuse people, it was written to govern them. And one of the things it does very clearly is explain how it can be changed. That provision is Section 328. It does not hide. It does not require a PhD to find. It is there, in plain language, telling Parliament exactly how to amend the Constitution, which clauses require a two-thirds majority, which require a referendum, and which do not. Constitution of Zimbabwe (Amendment No. 3) Bill, 2026 follows that process. Exactly. Now, some will build elaborate arguments using the word “this” in Section 2(1), or parse definitions in Section 332 across seventeen numbered points, to arrive at the conclusion that Parliament cannot amend existing constitutional provisions, only add new ones. Read that again slowly. They are arguing that every constitutional amendment in Zimbabwe’s history, including Amendment No. 1 and Amendment No. 2, was invalid. They are arguing that the word “amend” in Section 117(2)(a) does not mean what “amend” has always meant in every constitution in the world. That is not legal analysis. That is wordplay designed to confuse, not to illuminate. Section 117(2)(a) is unambiguous. It gives the Legislature, Parliament, the power to amend the Constitution in accordance with Section 328. Not to add to it only. Not to correct inconsistencies only. To amend it. And Section 328 provides the graduated framework for doing exactly that: some provisions require a referendum, others require enhanced majorities. The drafters of the 2013 Constitution were not careless people. They built a living document, not a frozen one. A constitution that cannot be amended by the people’s representatives, following the people’s own prescribed process, is not supreme law. It is a trap. Zimbabwe’s Constitution is not a trap. It is a framework. And CA3 operates squarely within that framework, initiated by Cabinet under Section 110(3)(c), proceeding through Parliament under Section 117(2)(a), following the amendment procedure under Section 328. The people who wrote Section 328 knew exactly what they were doing. The people trying to argue it away know exactly what they are doing too.

Ok. I do not know if I must also be dump like you and fail the basics in that- 1. s117(2)(a) refers Legislature to amend constitution "in accordance with s328" and not "in terms of" . This should be a loud and clear first step. Do not make "in accordance with" to mean "in terms of", two different things. 2. Once a provision says "in accordance with "it does not make you the originator of the action to be done but puts you in a fiduciary position which require you to ensure others bring legislative claims that comply with s328 a provision in constitution . Your mistake is to convert "in accordance with" to mean "in terms of". 3. In that regard, right from source of authority conferred to legislator, it is not the one to initiate amendments. 4. If the said s117(2)(a) had said "in terms of" then one would look at s328 and follow a step by step to complete the whole s328. 5. In that regard, it is the duty of the one who want the constitution to be amended that look at s328(2) first and must take note its wording which reads "An Act of Parliament that amends this constitution must do so in precise terms". Then look at his or her claim if the claim require some authorities vested somewhere was acquired first before approaching Parliament for enactment. 6. Now the said s117(2)(a) which said legislator amends constitution has now been broken down into Act of Parliament- it's no longer "legislator" amending but "Act of Parliament"- I think we can all read this and follow. 7. The Act of Parliament is the one amending constitution not ZANU MPs, so there is an Act of Parliament which you must visualise and put it to your right hand and make it raise its right hand to amend the constitution. Does that make this visually imaginable event suggest that the said animal "Act of Parliament" that has capacity to act on another animal called "this constitution" is part of the amended item? 8. Let me bring to you to the next step in text, "must do so in precise terms" who is giving terms here? Is it the constitution giving terms to amend or Act of Parliament givings terms? 9. Of course, the Act of Parliament is the one giving terms on which the amendments are being done and those terms must be precise. Does that make the terms of amending constitution referred here the actual proposed amendments? 10. If the amendments were part of the Act of Parliament then who is being given the terms of amendments by the same Act of Parliament to then amend constitution? That must show you from s328(2), the legislator (Parliament and President acting in accordance with chapter 6) has a role of looking at proposed amendments and see if the proposal deserve amendment, then draft a Bill (a draft judgement why Parliament think the proposal deserve approval for amendment) stating the precise terms and conditions the amendment are enacted. 11. Let's do it closer. Section 328(3) breaks down the task little bit further, s117(2)(a) was referring to Legislator which we later found out in s328(2) that Legislator is actually Act of Parliament doing it, but an Act of Parliament in terms of s131(2) is a Bill that was presented to Senate and National Assembly and acquired majority vote and Assented to and signed by President. So the precise terms referred to in s328(2) first have to be on a Bill that will be presented to public first and then to Parliament and then signed by President. 12. In that regard, what is referred in s328(3) as "Constitutional Bill" also defined by s328(1) is that which will be come Act of Parliament in s328(2) and Speaker before presenting it to be passed by Senate and National Assembly he must give 90 days notice to public. 13. Notice of what? Does s328(3) refer to notice of amendments to constitution? No. It is clear of what the Notice contains. 14. Clearly we can read and follow and see that the notice is of the Precise terms of the Constitutional Bill to be presented as the grounds upon which parliament feel they can amend the constitution. 15. Does that make the amendment themselves the terms? Of course not. Terms are separate thing that if enacted becomes an Act of Parliament but the proposed amendments, which must be an attachment or schedule to the Constitutional Bill, are separate thing brought by someone for reasons that will be in the terms of the Constitutional Bill. 16. In that regard a constitutional Bill is like a proposed judgement by Parliament on why they feel the proposed amendments must be enacted and it must justify the reasons the enactment must be granted. 17. This is the judgement we have 90 days of assessing and giving the parliament our views in order to help the parliament to be guided on their terms on the Bill in order for it to see if the terms meet the constitutional requirements first before we look at the proposal meeting the constitutional requirements. 18. It's like notices given by people wanting to marry who put public notice requiring any person to show cause why the two must not marry. The notice must attach what the two intend to marry say, are you a devorcee, Bachelor ,Spinster, widow, widower. These are terms upon which the two are getting married but once married your other reference vanish and marriage officer does not become part of marriage 19. Now, what is failing here is that, Cabinet through Minister of Justice, is the one seeking the amendment and the Bill itself is the amendment not the terms of amendment

The Constitution Is Not Frozen in the People’s Hands You are conflating constituent power with constitutional amendment procedure, two distinct legal concepts. Yes, the 2013 Constitution originated with the people through COPAC and referendum. But the people, in exercising that very constituent power, also wrote s328, which explicitly delegates amendment authority to Parliament. The people did not reserve all future changes to themselves. They created a graduated amendment procedure: some provisions require a referendum, others require enhanced parliamentary majorities. That is the people’s will, expressed in their own document. Your Lancaster House analogy works against you. Zimbabwean parties negotiated the constitutional content at Lancaster House, but it was British Parliament that enacted it. Nobody who voted in Westminster wrote that constitution. Enactment and authorship have always been distinct exercises. Your claim that a Bill cannot “become part of” the constitution misreads how constitutional amendment works in every jurisdiction. The Amendment Act is the instrument; the amended constitution is the result. Nobody argues the instrument is the constitution. S95(2)(b) is not a term-limit provision under s328(1), it is coterminous with Parliament, not a fixed personal cap. S328(7)’s incumbent-protection rule is therefore never triggered. The two-thirds majority required under s328 was met and the procedure prescribed was followed. You want to invoke the people’s voice, but the people already spoke in 2013, when they wrote s328 themselves.

The Constitution Is Not a Riddle. Stop Pretending It Is. Some people have taken to social media with long, numbered posts full of legal-sounding definitions, hoping that complexity alone will pass for argument. It will not. Let us make this simple. The 2013 Constitution of Zimbabwe was written by Zimbabweans, for Zimbabweans. It was not written to confuse people, it was written to govern them. And one of the things it does very clearly is explain how it can be changed. That provision is Section 328. It does not hide. It does not require a PhD to find. It is there, in plain language, telling Parliament exactly how to amend the Constitution, which clauses require a two-thirds majority, which require a referendum, and which do not. CA3 follows that process. Exactly. Now, some will build elaborate arguments using the word “this” in Section 2(1), or parse definitions in Section 332 across seventeen numbered points, to arrive at the conclusion that Parliament cannot amend existing constitutional provisions, only add new ones. Read that again slowly. They are arguing that every constitutional amendment in Zimbabwe’s history, including Amendment No. 1 and Amendment No. 2, was invalid. They are arguing that the word “amend” in Section 117(2)(a) does not mean what “amend” has always meant in every constitution in the world. That is not legal analysis. That is wordplay designed to confuse, not to illuminate. Section 117(2)(a) is unambiguous. It gives the Legislature, Parliament, the power to amend the Constitution in accordance with Section 328. Not to add to it only. Not to correct inconsistencies only. To amend it. And Section 328 provides the graduated framework for doing exactly that: some provisions require a referendum, others require enhanced majorities. The drafters of the 2013 Constitution were not careless people. They built a living document, not a frozen one. A constitution that cannot be amended by the people’s representatives, following the people’s own prescribed process, is not supreme law. It is a trap. Zimbabwe’s Constitution is not a trap. It is a framework. And CA3 operates squarely within that framework, initiated by Cabinet under Section 110(3)(c), proceeding through Parliament under Section 117(2)(a), following the amendment procedure under Section 328. The people who wrote Section 328 knew exactly what they were doing. The people trying to argue it away know exactly what they are doing too.

𝗗𝗢 𝗪𝗘 𝗙𝗜𝗚𝗛𝗧 𝗖𝗔𝗕𝟯’𝗦 𝗜𝗡𝗩𝗔𝗟𝗜𝗗𝗜𝗧𝗬 𝗢𝗥 𝗗𝗢 𝗪𝗘 𝗟𝗘𝗚𝗜𝗧𝗜𝗠𝗜𝗭𝗘 𝗜𝗧 𝗕𝗬 𝗙𝗜𝗚𝗛𝗧𝗜𝗡𝗚 𝗢𝗧𝗛𝗘𝗥 𝗜𝗦𝗦𝗨𝗘𝗦? According to the Zimbabwean Constitution of 2013, the President and his Cabinet, which are referred to as the Executive, do not have a right to change the existing Constitution according to the functions given to the Executive in section 110 of the Constitution. 1. According to s110(3)(c), the Executive can initiate, facilitate, and implement LEGISLATION. In other words they can make NEW legislation. 𝗡𝗼𝘁𝗲: making NEW legislation is not the right to create a new Constitution and it is not a right to amend existing legislation or to amend the existing Constitution. So this right is only to create new legislation ONLY. 2. 110(1)(a) the Executive can assent to and sign Bills. 3. 110(1)(b) the Executive can send a Bill to the Constitutional Court to check constitutionality. 4. 110(2)(f) the Executive can call for a referendum. FULL STOP. Do we agree that nowhere in the 22-23 points of section 110 are the executive given the power to write a Bill to amend or change the Constitution? Why? Because the Executive must uphold the Constitution. You can’t uphold a constitution or supreme law that you can change whenever you want, hence they were not given the power to change the Constitution. So this means the Executive had/has no power or right to create a Constitutional Amendment Bill (CAB3, CAB2, or CAB1), hence CAB3 and the others are invalid. As a nation, we must now decide what about CAB3 we are challenging in court. Are we challenging the attempt by the Bill to take away the constitutional rights and power of the people and to give them to a few? Or are we challenging CAB3 as being invalid from the start? We must decide because we can’t have both.

Professor Lovemore Madhuku in his Own Words Making the Case for Parliament to Indirectly Elect the President as an Electoral College: “We must not put in the Constitution of the country a provision that is dependant on what happens in a political party. That’s the point I’m making. We must never say in our Constitution of Zimbabwe that if a sitting President dies or resigns, we will wait to hear what the political party of that President is saying. No. That is not the best way of running a country. Political parties remain the preserve of those people who are in those political parties. But the country is run on the basis of either an election by the people—direct election—or you have Parliament as an institution sitting as an electoral college. Where parties have influence, they must do the influence within Parliament, but never to allow the political party to sit there to say I’m giving you this President, and so forth. That’s the point I’m making. And on that point, I’m making it right across the world; that’s what they do.” - Professor Madhuku, addressing a “Heal Zimbabwe Trust” public meeting in Harare on 22 February 2020. COMMENT: Professor Lovemore Madhuku’s 2020 remarks make a clear, powerful and enduring case for Clause 3 of the Constitution of Zimbabwe (Amendment No. 3) H.B.I. Bill, 2026. This clause replaces the direct election of the President with an indirect election by Parliament sitting jointly as an electoral college; both after every general election and, when necessary, to fill any vacancy in the office of President. The current direct election of the President was first introduced in anticipation of a legislated one-party-one-man rule through Constitution Amendment No. 7, Act 1987 in the old Lancaster Constitution repealed in 2013. Professor Madhuku put it plainly: The Constitution should not—as it currently does— depend on the internal decisions of a political party to select a successor to the President of the country. When a sitting President dies, resigns or is removed, the nation should not have to wait and hear what that President’s political party “is saying.” That is not a constitutionally proper way to run a country. Political parties exist for their own members. The country, however, belongs to all Zimbabweans. The proper solution is straightforward: Parliament—the institution chosen by the people—should act as the electoral college. Inside that open forum, parties may exercise their influence transparently and accountably. No party should ever stand outside the Constitution and simply “give” the nation its next leader. This principle is not abstract. Worldwide, presidential by-elections to fill mid-term vacancies are extremely rare. Most stable presidential systems instead use automatic succession by a deputy or, increasingly, allow the legislature to elect a successor who serves out the remainder of the term. These arrangements place national continuity and stability above partisan interests. Clause 3 of the Bill follows exactly this proven path. By giving Parliament the clear duty to elect the President—whether at the start of a new term or in an unforeseen vacancy—Zimbabwe will secure stronger democratic stability, and keep the highest office firmly within the people’s constitutional framework rather than the private control of any single party. In short, Clause 3 is a mature, practical and principled reform that directly honours Professor Madhuku’s wise 2020 counsel. As such, it deserves the full support of every well-meaning Zimbabwean who values good governance, democratic constitutionalism, institutional integrity and the long-term strength of the country’s democracy in the national interest!

Meeting that involves Zvigananda and no VPs? 🚮🚮🚮