Online Reporter
Zvamaida Murwira
Senior Reporter
ZANU PF has stated that it is open to subjecting Constitution of Zimbabwe Amendment No. 3 Bill to a referendum, while also maintaining that the supreme law does not mandate such a process for the proposed changes.
The party’s director for Information and Publicity, Cde Farai Marapira, said the consultative process undertaken so far was adequate and fully compliant with the Constitution.
Cde Marapira made the remarks on Monday evening during Star FM’s current affairs programme, Muriro on Monday, which hosted a panel discussion on CAB3.
“As Zanu PF, we have never refused to go to a referendum, but as a party, we work within the parameters of the law,” he said.
“If one is to look at the dictates of the Constitution of 2013, these issues that are at hand do not require a plebiscite.
“But this process that we have done is enough, and to my understanding, this issue was before the courts, and this is our stance as Zanu PF; not that we have any fear of a plebiscite, but it’s just that we work within the parameters of the law. We do not break the law to suit our own ends, or to suit anyone else’s ends.”
Cde Marapira said the ruling party had fulfilled the spirit and letter of the law and “this is what we believe we are doing”.
The proposed amendments are aimed at improving institutional effectiveness.
Cde Marapira said that through the Bill, Zimbabwe was looking at strengthening Presidential accountability mechanisms and enhancing institutional efficiency.
“These changes align with Vision 2030 . . . reducing constitutional ambiguities and creating a governance framework which is conducive to rapid development,” he said.
Cde Marapira also said extensive consultations were conducted around the Bill in a “reflection of public input”.
Justice, Legal and Parliamentary Affairs Portfolio Committee chairperson Cde Eddison Zvobgo (Jnr), who contributed to the discussion, said the proposal for Parliament to elect the President was not unique to Zimbabwe.
“In terms of the election of the President, I must say that it is a misconception that there’s only one type of democracy.
“If you look at what’s happening in the United Kingdom, if the Prime Minister falls or if he is under some pressure, the next Prime Minister will be chosen by the Labour Party (from where PM Keir Starmer comes).
“If you also look at the United States, (President) Donald Trump lost the popular vote twice. More people voted against him than those who voted for him, but because of the electoral system they have there, he managed to win,” said Cde Zvobgo.
He added that allowing Parliament to elect the President would have several benefits, including reducing election-related costs.
“The decision to allow Parliament to vote for the President will reduce costs incredibly . . . Remember, this is not the first electoral amendment and we have been through this process before and constitutionally, we have followed exactly what we did previously and nobody objected,” said Cde Zvobgo.
Addressing calls for a referendum, Cde Zvobgo said the matter is before the courts and therefore sub judice, but Parliament’s view was that a referendum was unnecessary.
“The issue is actually sub judice at the moment, but our view, obviously, as Parliament is that there is no need for a referendum.
“As you know, we have separation of powers in this country. The job of Parliament is to legislate, and it’s the job of the courts to adjudicate any issues that might arise.
“So, it is actually a case that is before the courts right now. We shall hear what input (comes from the courts), but our view as Parliament was that a referendum was not necessary because we are extending the electoral cycle,” said Cde Zvobgo.
Another panellist, Dzivaresekwa legislator Mr Edwin Mushoriwa, expressed reservations about the Bill, arguing that it contained several provisions that required further scrutiny.
He said he did not support the proposal to transfer the voter registration function from the Zimbabwe Electoral Commission (ZEC) to the Registrar General’s Office, and also opposed the creation of a separate delimitation entity outside the electoral management body.
Debate on CAB3 continues to generate interest across the political divide, with supporters arguing that the amendments will improve governance efficiency, while critics maintain that some provisions require further consultation and review.
