Zimbabwe’s government has conceded to removing two controversial clauses from the Constitution Amendment No 3 Bill (CAB 3) following pressure from legislators. Justice, Legal and Parliamentary Affairs Minister Ziyambi Ziyambi confirmed the administration will abandon plans to scrap the Zimbabwe Gender Commission and will maintain the current political status of traditional leaders. While the government retains its push for presidential term extensions, the concession marks a tactical retreat in the face of opposition within the National Assembly.
Why is the government modifying the CAB 3 Bill?
Minister Ziyambi Ziyambi stated that the government yielded to the majority of legislators who opposed specific sections of the bill. According to the minister, members from both sides of the political divide argued against the removal of the Gender Commission and the integration of chiefs into partisan politics. Ziyambi noted that the principle of traditional leaders remaining separate from partisan contests is “unassailable.” The decision to keep the status quo for chiefs follows concerns raised by legislators such as Honourable Guyo, who cited the potential for marginalizing traditional leaders in public life.
A parliamentary committee reported receiving 540,037 submissions regarding the bill. While 537,102 were in favor, only 2,935 submissions opposed the legislation, creating a sharp contrast between public hearing data and the vocal opposition within the National Assembly.
What is the status of the presidential term extension?
Despite the concessions on the Gender Commission and the role of chiefs, the government remains committed to the core objective of the bill: extending President Emmerson Mnangagwa’s term by two years. Ziyambi described the provisions regarding the presidential election process and the electoral cycle as the most contentious, acknowledging they drew the “heaviest debate” in the House. Former MP Munyaradzi Gwisai stated that opposition legislators have successfully highlighted the “bankruptcy” of these extensions, calling for a national referendum to gauge public consent before any such constitutional changes proceed.
How are opposition factions responding to the negotiations?
The Citizens Coalition for Change (CCC) faction led by Sengezo Tshabangu has framed these concessions as a direct result of their negotiations with the ruling party. Spokesperson Nqobizitha Mlilo stated that the removal of the two clauses reflects “good-faith negotiations” aimed at establishing a government of national consensus. However, this strategy faces criticism from other quarters. Former army generals and senior civil servants, led by Retired Air Vice-Marshal Henry Muchena, have publicly opposed the bill, characterizing the term-extension efforts as an assault on liberation struggle ideals, specifically the one-man, one-vote principle.
Legal challenges and the path forward
Constitutional lawyer Lovemore Madhuku confirmed that war veterans are moving their legal challenge to the High Court after the Constitutional Court declined to exercise jurisdiction. According to Madhuku, the Constitutional Court ruled that the duties allegedly breached by the President were not specific enough for its intervention. This procedural shift means the case will now proceed through the High Court before potentially returning to the Constitutional Court via the standard appeals process.
When tracking constitutional amendments, focus on the “committee stage” of the legislative process. This is where clause-by-clause scrutiny occurs and where the most significant text-based changes—like those recently announced by Minister Ziyambi—are formally adopted.
Frequently Asked Questions
What are the two clauses the government dropped?
The government agreed to stop plans to scrap the Zimbabwe Gender Commission and decided against changing the political status of traditional leaders, meaning they will not be permitted to participate in partisan politics.
Is the presidential term extension still in the bill?
Yes. Minister Ziyambi Ziyambi confirmed the government is still pursuing the extension of President Mnangagwa’s term and the life of Parliament by two years.
Why did the Constitutional Court reject the war veterans’ case?
The court ruled that the alleged breaches of duty by the President were not specific enough to warrant its exclusive jurisdiction, directing the applicants to file their case in the High Court instead.
Stay informed on the latest legislative developments in Zimbabwe. Subscribe to our newsletter for updates on the CAB 3 debate and other constitutional proceedings.
