
Chikadaya
677 posts

Chikadaya
@Eng_Chikadaya
Industrial Automation Engineer| Entrepreneur| Business Development | Strategy| Radlay Automation| Farmer
























There is considerable debate around Constitutional Amendment Bill No. 3. I have deliberately not read it. I thought that by doing so, I would avoid the temptation to comment. However, many engaging in the discussion have tagged me — apparently because of the opinion I expressed on 26 October 2025. If the summaries circulating are accurate, I struggle to see how the proposed changes could be effected without triggering a referendum under Section 328 of the Constitution. We debated Section 328 extensively last year. What we did not debate is Section 158, which governs the timing of General Elections. It requires that General Elections be held not more than 30 days before the expiry of the five-year period specified in Section 143. While Section 158 may not itself be a “term-limiting provision” as contemplated in Section 328, it certainly provides substantial constitutional grounds for challenging any extension of tenure. As for Parliament, Section 143 is unequivocally term-limiting. Absent some genuine constitutional innovation, it is difficult to see how it could be amended without a referendum. Call me naïve — I will plead guilty. My assumption in 2025 was that Government might rely on the COVID-19 pandemic and introduce a narrowly tailored provision along these lines: “Section 158A: In computing the tenure of Parliament or the term of office of the President during any term immediately following the tenure during which a national pandemic lasting more than two years occurs, a period of two years shall be deducted and excluded from such computation.” That approach would at least have confined the legal question to whether such an insertion constituted an amendment to a term-limiting provision within the meaning of Section 328. From what I gather, however, the path reportedly taken appears to require a referendum.



























