10/04/2026
10 April 2026
FINAL STATEMENT
Public Hearings for the Constitution of Zimbabwe Amendment (No. 3) Bill, 2026
30 March – 2 April 2026
Following the publication of a notice of public hearings by Parliament scheduled for 30 March to 2 April 2026, the Election Resource Centre Africa (ERC Africa) deployed observers to observe the public hearings on the Constitution of Zimbabwe Amendment (No. 3) Bill, 2026. The hearings were intended to facilitate citizen participation in constitutional reform, in line with Section 328(4) of the Constitution. The ERC deployed 44 observers across 65 district venues, covering 68% of all scheduled hearing venues. The ERC Africa Public Hearing observer reports were complemented by CSO and CBO submissions, journalists, media monitoring, social media analysis, and open-source intelligence.
While the ERC Africa commends Parliament of Zimbabwe for significant updates and for ensuring general transparency throughout the public hearings, observations from the public hearings indicate challenges that potentially affected widespread and open participation in the process.
Political Context
On 16 February 2026, the Speaker of Parliament, gazetted the Constitution of Zimbabwe Amendment (No. 3) Bill, 2026 which proposes extensive changes to the governance and electoral framework of Zimbabwe. The political context ahead of the public hearings period was marked by increasing polarisation, lack of confidence in political institutions and administrative constraints negatively affecting the participating civic space.
Overview of Proposed Constitutional Changes
The Constitution of Zimbabwe Amendment (No. 3) Bill, 2026, proposes a fundamental restructuring of the nation’s governance and electoral framework. Key provisions observed by the ERC include:
Executive and Legislative Tenure: A proposal to extend the term of office for the President and Members of Parliament from five to seven years (Clause 3, amending Sections 91, 95, and 143).
Electoral System Transition: A shift from a direct popular vote for the Presidency to a system where the President is elected by a joint sitting of the National Assembly and the Senate (Clauses 4, 9, and 10, amending Section 92).
Administrative Realignment: The transfer of voter registration and voters' roll management from the Zimbabwe Electoral Commission (ZEC) to the Registrar-General (Clauses 2 and 17, amending Section 239), and the creation of a new Zimbabwe Electoral Delimitation Commission (Clauses 11, 12, 13, and 17, amending Section 161).
Judicial and Oversight Appointments: Enhanced executive authority in the appointment of all judges (Clause 15, amending Section 180) and the Prosecutor-General (Clause 20, amending Section 259), alongside the repeal of the National Peace and Reconciliation Commission (NPRC) and the Zimbabwe Gender Commission (ZGC) (Clauses 18, 19, and 22).
Traditional Leadership: The repeal of Section 281(2), which currently prohibits traditional leaders from participating in partisan politics or advancing the interests of any political party (Clause 21).
While the Bill's memorandum frames these extensive shifts, particularly the extension of terms as a means to "eliminate election mode toxicity," the magnitude of these changes to the 2013 Constitution explains the high levels of public concern and the polarized environment observed during the hearings.
Freedom of Association & Assembly
Ahead of the public hearings stakeholders decried the selective application of the Maintenance of Peace and Order Act (MOPA) denying open participation in the mobilisation of citizens ahead of the public hearings. There were stakeholder concerns about the right to freedom of assembly in relation to the Constitutional Amendment Bill and the public hearings, where CSO efforts to engage on the Bill were being subjected to unreasonable cancellation by the Zimbabwe Republic Police. While anti-Constitutional Amendment movements such as the Constitutional Defenders Platform had their applications for public meetings cancelled by the ZRP and their members arrested during a private meeting in Mutare further fuelling speculation of partisan application of the law meant to silence dissenting voices. These developments created early apprehension among stakeholders and potentially had a chilling effect on citizen participation in the public hearing process. The principle and right of freedom of assembly should be safeguarded in the application of МОРА.
Additionally, it was noted with concern that, in some locations, unofficial marshals controlled entry into public hearing venues, observed at approximately 50% of the public hearing venues where ERC Africa had observers, restricting access for individuals perceived to be opposing the Bill. This potentially infringed on the rights associated with assembly, association, expression and the right to participate in the public hearings under the Constitution of Zimbabwe and the various international instruments applicable in Zimbabwe.
Freedom of Expression
During the public hearings, the political environment remained tense and, at times, not conducive to free expression. A coercive atmosphere at public hearing locations created a chilling effect on participation amid the turnout and was incompatible with the spirit of section 61(1) of the Constitution and international instruments which requires Zimbabwe to uphold, amongst others, the freedom of expression. Additionally, documented reports of post-participation victimisation further undermined confidence in the public hearing process. Limited visible action by authorities in response to incidents of disruption, violence and rights violation weakened public trust in the integrity of the process.
Public Hearing Administration
In view of the significance of the public hearings in the overall consultation process of the Constitutional Amendment Bill, consulted stakeholders expressed the view that the administration of the public hearing process was compromised. A key justification for this perception was information that the management of the public hearings varied across locations, with notable procedural inconsistencies. These included the absence of standardised and transparent criteria for selecting speakers, a lack of clear identification of parliamentary officials and support personnel, and inconsistent approaches to time allocation and participant engagement. Collectively, these gaps contributed to perceptions of partiality and undermined the procedural credibility of the hearings. In some venues, the presence of security personnel was perceived as intimidating rather than facilitative. Collectively, these shortcomings contributed to an environment that discouraged open and meaningful engagement.
Turnout & Meaningful Participation
Turnout at public hearing venues appeared high in locations, in part due to the small sizes of the venues selected, which created a misleading impression of strong public participation as attendees were densely packed into limited spaces. However, when considered relative to district population sizes, overall turnout was concerningly low, estimated at 0.4% of the district population in Harare and Mutare for example. Venue suitability and accessibility challenges were widespread, including insufficient capacity to accommodate attendees and limited infrastructure, both of which constrained meaningful and effective participation. Large crowds, combined with a limited number of public hearing venues and restricted time allocations, meant that approximately 37 attendees could make oral submissions in Bulawayo for example. While in 77% of observed public hearings, people were not given an adequate opportunity to submit their views. The absence of clear and transparent selection frameworks created risks of selective participation, while reports of intimidation and reprisals raised serious concerns regarding freedom of expression. Overall, the process fell short of ensuring broad-based, inclusive participation.
The bussing in of participants was also observed in various locations, raising concerns about the organic representation of local communities and representativeness of the public hearings. In some instances, groups appeared to have been mobilised and transported from outside the host districts, which may have skewed participation patterns and undermined the principle that public hearings should primarily reflect the views of individuals ordinarily resident in the affected communities. Such practices risk distorting the consultative process by amplifying organised or coordinated voices at the expense of local perspectives, thereby compromising the inclusivity, fairness, and credibility of the hearings.
Inclusion
Marginalised groups, including persons with disabilities and communities representing Zimbabwe’s 16 official languages, remain an important constituency in national processes. However, their participation appears to have been affected by a range of structural and logistical factors observed during the public hearings. These include geographic remoteness, limited decentralisation of public hearing venues, and constrained access to information. There were also concerns regarding the extent to which targeted measures were implemented to facilitate participation of vulnerable or marginalised groups. These factors significantly limited inclusivity and engagement.
Media
While diverse media access was generally permitted, an important and commendable step toward transparency in the public hearing process, incidents of interference with journalists in Harare undermined this progress. Reports included instances of pressure, obstruction, and the deletion of footage, particularly when documenting disruptions during the consultations. If left unaddressed, such actions risk undermining transparency and weakening public accountability.
Conclusion
The public hearings demonstrated strong citizen interest in constitutional processes, reflecting a willingness among Zimbabweans to engage in governance issues. However, the public hearings did not fully meet constitutional principles or international best practices for participatory law-making. While the public hearings provided a platform for engagement, the credibility of the process ultimately rests on genuine, inclusive, and open engagement, standards that were not consistently realised. In some instances, key issues identified risked reducing the hearings to a procedural exercise rather than a meaningful platform for deliberation on proposed constitutional changes.
Addressing these gaps is essential to restore public confidence, strengthen the legitimacy of outcomes, and ensure alignment with constitutional standards as well as regional and international democratic standards. Therefore, the ERC Africa proposes that;
Priority Recommendations
The Parliament of Zimbabwe should, in the interests of justice, conduct additional public hearings within the remainder of the 90 day consultation period, set to conclude on 17 May 2026, to enhance opportunities for public participation.
The Parliament of Zimbabwe should explore further decentralisation of public hearings, including at constituency or ward level, to facilitate broader, more inclusive and widespread consultation on the Constitutional Amendment Bill.
The Parliament of Zimbabwe, should in the interest of inclusive practices, expand mechanisms for the submission of public views, beyond existing in-person and email channels, in order to improve accessibility and participation.
The Government of Zimbabwe should take measures to safeguard civic space and the enjoyment of fundamental freedoms, including freedoms of expression and assembly, in line with constitutional and international standards which includes addressing the selective application of the Maintenance of Peace and Order Act.
The Zimbabwe Republic Police, the Parliament of Zimbabwe, the Zimbabwe Human Rights Commission and relevant stakeholders should ensure timely and effective responses to reported incidents of violence and intimidation, including appropriate steps to promote accountability.
END
Written Submissions
In addition to the public hearings on the Bill, Parliament of Zimbabwe continues to invite the public to make written submissions on the Constitution of Zimbabwe Amendment (No. 3) Bill, 2026 .
Written submissions should be sent to:
·The Clerk of Parliament, New Parliament Building, Mt Hampden, or
·The Clerk of Parliament, Parliament of Zimbabwe, P.O. Box CY298, Causeway, Harare, or
Emailed to: [email protected]
