Brasko

6/6 In short @freemanchari , your technical argument is actually a powerful case FOR #CA3. The Bill dismantles the very ZEC machinery that produced the unconstitutional delimitation you described. Read the clauses before using them as ammunition against the Bill that fixes them.

5/6 To add Clause 12 transfers voter registration & the voters roll to the Registrar General, removing another function that ZEC abused. The architecture of #CA3 is a direct response to institutional failures you @freemanchari are correctly identifying. @ProfJNMoyo @mawarirej

4/6 (b) So the your scenario @freemanchari is based on a problem the Bill is designed to cure. @ProfJNMoyo @Bete263 @mawarirej

4/6 (a) @freemanchari ‘s calculation that a party winning fewer constituencies could control Parly & elect a president assumes the same broken delimitation continues. By if #CA3 passes, the new Delimitation Commission operates under a clear constitutional mandate.

3/6 Clauses 10 & 11 transfer delimitation functions to this new dedicated body. The unconstitutional delimitation @freemanchari is angry abt happened UNDER current system. #CA3 structurally prevents it from happening again by creating an independent body with a singular mandate

2/6 Clause 9 of #CA3 creates a brand new Zim Electoral Delimitation Commission, completely separate from ZEC. The very problem you @freemanchari are describing, ZEC misinterpreting the 20% rule to create a 40% disparity, is addressed by removing delimitation from ZEC entirely.

1/6 You @freemanchari argue that the 2023 delimitation was unconstitutional & created a 40% disparity between constituencies, making the parliamentary election of president untenable. That is actually a compelling argument FOR #CA3 not against it @ProfJNMoyo @mawarirej @KMutisi

Vahanzvadzi @freemanchari thank you for the technical addition. But let us follow your argument to its logical conclusion and see why then you not supporting #CA3 @ProfJNMoyo @Bete263 @KMutisi @mawarirej

The Chameleon Speaks In August 2020, Jealousy Mawarire told Zimbabwe exactly what he thought of the 2013 Constitution, a "silly document," "badly drafted," "confused," negotiated by "coup lawyers." He called for a new constitution. Fast forward to 2026, and this same man is now the loudest voice against CA3, constitutional reform he once demanded with his own thumbs. The question isn't whether Zimbabwe's constitution needs reform. Even Mawarire said it does. The question is: who changed, the constitution, or the chameleon? When Government was not driving the process, he wanted a new constitution. Now that the people's representatives are delivering exactly that reform, suddenly the document is sacred and untouchable. Nhemachena haizivi muridzi, the chameleon doesn't know its own master. Mawarire's principles move with whoever is paying for his attention, not with whatever is true.

THE CHAMELEON’S CONSTITUTION: A @mawarirej story, told in his own words Meet Jealousy Mawarire. Constitutional scholar. Electoral reform champion. BMW enthusiast. ZAR recipient. And one of Zimbabwe’s loudest opponents of the very constitutional reform process he spent years demanding. Don’t take my word for it. Take his. In August 2020, @mawarirej looked at Zimbabwe’s 2013 Constitution and had some thoughts: “I believe that silly document negotiated by coup lawyers…is the most badly drafted & confused document I have ever read. We need a new constitution.” 🔗 x.com/mawarirej/stat… A new constitution. His words. Not mine. Screenshot saved. But Jealousy wasn’t just venting. He had a detailed, legally grounded reform agenda. He cited sections. He cited subsections. The man did his homework. His core demand, repeated across three years of tweets: Zimbabwe must move from First Past The Post to Proportional Representation, and this cannot be done through the Electoral Act alone. The constitution itself must be amended. His words, June 2020: “The Electoral System doesn’t need to change the Electoral Act, it needs an amendment of the constitution because it’s the constitution, not the Electoral Act, which provides for FPTP as the electoral system.” Constitutional amendment. Required. His legal conclusion. Not mine. And why did he want PR? Because of specific constitutional provisions he said were being violated. December 2021: “It’s a violation of sections 17(b)(ii), 56 & 80 of the 2013 constitution. We need some serious efforts to address this, including, but not limited to changing the electoral system from First Past The Post to Proportional Representation.” 🔗 x.com/mawarirej/stat… Section 17. Section 56. Section 80. Women’s representation. Gender equality. Youth inclusion. He mapped the constitutional violations himself. He prescribed the remedy himself. The remedy was: amend the constitution. By October 2022 he was still at it. Numbered threads. Hashtags. Growing urgency: “We need a complete change of our electoral system to fulltime PR in order to be compliant to sections 17, 56 & 80 of the constitution.” 🔗 x.com/mawarirej/stat… “We need to change electoral system from First Past The Post (FPTP) to PR, it’s imperative.” 🔗 x.com/mawarirej/stat… Imperative. Not optional. Not debatable. Constitutional compliance demanded it. Now here is where the chameleon shows its colours. CA3 is a constitutional amendment. It opens the constitution for reform across 22 clauses. It is precisely the legal vehicle Mawarire said was necessary. And yet Mawarire stands against it. Why? Not because the constitution doesn’t need reform, he said it does. Not because the Electoral Act is the right vehicle, he said it isn’t. Not because constitutional amendment is inappropriate, he said it’s the only way. He opposes it because of who is driving. When it wasn’t his preferred faction behind the wheel, the destination suddenly became tyranny. The road he himself paved became a road to ruin. The constitutional amendment he demanded became a constitutional crisis. Some people have principles. Others have principals. And some have both, a principal in Harare North, and principles that travel wherever the ZAR flows. Nhemachena haizivi muridzi. The chameleon doesn’t know its own master. It only knows which colour keeps the BMW tank full. 🇿🇦​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​ #CA3

The question is not “Do we want a referendum?” It is “Does the Constitution require one?” Definetly NOT! #CA3 #Vision2030 #Noreferendum

@mawarirej Thank you for responding. But your response actually proves our point more than it refutes it. Allow me to show your exiled soul how

The parliamentary method of choosing the President has been endorsed by @mawarirej - another proof that shows that those who drafted the #CA3 bill were on point. Zimbabwe needs a President who accounts to Parliament @ProfJNMoyo @KMutisi @Bete263 @matinyarare

Day 7 of 26: Let’s unpack the Constitution Amendment (No.3) Bill - Clause by Clause Yesterday we dealt with the "benefit" argument. Today, let’s confront the second claim: "It must go to a referendum." Sounds convincing. But again, the Constitution of Zimbabwe is more precise than popular opinion. The key points many miss is that YES not every constitutional amendment requires a referendum, and the Constitution clearly distinguishes between amendments Parliament can pass and amendments that MUST go to a referendum. The real question is NOT "Is this important?" OR "Do people feel strongly about it?" The real question is "Does this amendment fall into the category that REQUIRES a referendum?" The Constitution sets out specific provisions that require a referendum if amended. These include 1. Amending the Bill of Rights (Chapter 4) 2. Amending Chapter 16 (Agricultural Land) 3. Amending Term-Limit Provisions (2 year tenure of an incumbent president) A referendum is triggered when you are removing or weakening those protections. NOT simply when you are making any change. So let’s apply that test to #CA3: - Is the two-term limit being removed? ❌ No - Is the Bill of Rights being altered? ❌ No - Is Chapter 16 being amended?❌ No If those triggers are not activated, then legally a referendum is not automatically required. This is where emotion often overtakes legal reasoning. People argue, "It’s a big change, therefore it must go to the people." But constitutional law does not work on “size” or “feeling. It works on specific triggers written into the Constitution. Let us be very clear; the Constitution already decided when Zimbabweans must vote in a referendum. That threshold is not based on opinion it is based on defined provisions. So the real legal question is not "Do we want a referendum?" It is "Does the Constitution REQUIRE one in this case?" And based on the structure of Section 328, the answer depends on whether protected clauses are being altered not on political preference. #NOT every amendment goes to a referendum. #NOT every change is a constitutional violation. #NOT every strong opinion is supported by the law. #CA3 #Vision2030

Countdown in motion 20 days left! 🇿🇼 #CA3 engagement is not over yet. Make your submission today. bills@parlzim.gov.zw

@ProfJNMoyo @Jamwanda2 @mawarirej @citezw @ibbosnr @BitiTendai @DougColtart @nickmangwana @zimlive Lastly @mawarirej Your own tweet. 20 March 2022. 09:08am. “A president elected by parliament is most likely going to be answerable to it.” That is literally Clause 2 of #CA3. Word for word. What changed between 2022 & today? The argument was yours. @ProfJNMoyo @Bete263 @KMutisi

9/9 Zimbabweans who followed your electoral reform sermons between 2020 & 2021 deserve an explanation. Not a rebrand. Not a new narrative. A genuine explanation of why the reform you preached is now a coup when someone you don’t agree with is implementing it. #CA3 @ProfJNMoyo

Morning @mawarirej , #CA3 is literally the answer to everything you once preached and advocated for between 2020 and 2021. Let us go clause by clause in this thread and expose your hypocrisy 🧵@ProfJNMoyo @KMutisi @Bete263

21 days to go. Speak up. Be heard. 🇿🇼 #CA3 #vision2030

@karabongoepe1 @matinyarare He will not come with any law books...all he ia good at is baseless accusations and lots of lies!

@matinyarare Interesting debate you want to open. Before we start or go anywhere, I need for you to bring a law reviser’s copy of the Zimbabwean Constitution and we dissect it section by section and you pull out the exact sections/parts that support your argument and I’ll pull out mine.

This is an incompetent legal appraisal of the Zimbabwean Constitution and the Constitutional Amendment Bill 3 by Karabo: 1. Firstly he argues that extending a term from five years to seven years is not a term limit extension intended to increase the time in office of an office holder (the President) because it’s not an extension of the number of terms. 2. This is flawed because terms by legal definition are determined by two elements: (i) length (number of years in a term) and (ii) number of terms. Obviously you can’t have a limit on number of terms one serves, without an agreed limit to the years that constitute a term. This is why extending the length of a term from five years to seven years is the quintessential definition of a term [length] limit extension. 3. Secondly, Karabo also does not address the issue that a term limit extension amendment cannot benefit the incumbent making the amendment unless a referendum changes section 328(7) to allow an incumbent to enjoy the term extension made while he is in office. It’s clear that Karabo has no grasp of the legal issues he is debating, but he was given a brief to write a paid article, which comes across incompetent and of course unethical.