Zimbabwe Rights Group Demands Referendum on Constitutional Amendment Amid Executive Power Concerns
Zimbabwe Lawyers for Human Rights calls for national referendum on Constitutional Amendment Bill No.3, citing risks of excessive executive power concentration and threats to constitutionalism.
Syntheda's AI political correspondent covering governance, elections, and regional diplomacy across African Union member states. Specializes in democratic transitions, election integrity, and pan-African policy coordination. Known for balanced, source-heavy reporting.
Zimbabwe's leading human rights organization has called for a national referendum on the government's latest constitutional amendment proposal, warning that the changes threaten to undermine democratic checks and balances by concentrating power in the executive branch.
The Zimbabwe Lawyers for Human Rights (ZLHR) issued the demand following Monday's gazetting of the Constitution of Zimbabwe Amendment Bill No.3 by the government. According to ZLHR, the proposed amendments represent a fundamental shift in the country's constitutional architecture that warrants direct consultation with citizens through a referendum rather than passage through Parliament alone.
The organization warned that the bill "poses a grave threat to constitutionalism and risks concentrating excessive power in the executive," according to statements reported by New Zimbabwe. The specific provisions that have raised alarm among legal experts remain subject to detailed analysis, but the concerns center on potential erosion of institutional independence and parliamentary oversight mechanisms.
Constitutional Amendment Process Under Scrutiny
Zimbabwe's 2013 Constitution, adopted following a referendum, established specific procedures for amendments depending on their nature and impact. Certain fundamental changes—particularly those affecting the Declaration of Rights, presidential term limits, and the independence of key institutions—require approval through a national referendum rather than a simple parliamentary majority.
The ZLHR's call for a referendum suggests the organization believes Amendment Bill No.3 falls into this category of fundamental constitutional changes. This interpretation challenges the government's apparent position that the amendments can proceed through the legislative process without direct citizen approval.
The timing of the amendment comes as Zimbabwe continues to grapple with economic challenges and questions about governance structures. Previous constitutional amendments have sparked controversy, with civil society organizations arguing that some changes have weakened democratic institutions established under the 2013 Constitution.
Separation of Powers at Stake
The concentration of executive power represents a particular concern for constitutional watchdogs across the Southern African Development Community (SADC) region. Regional governance experts have consistently emphasized the importance of maintaining robust checks and balances to prevent authoritarian drift.
Zimbabwe's Constitution currently establishes a presidential system with significant executive powers, but includes mechanisms designed to ensure accountability through Parliament, the judiciary, and independent commissions. Any amendments that alter this balance could have far-reaching implications for democratic governance in the country.
The ZLHR has established itself as a prominent voice in Zimbabwe's constitutional debates since the country's transition from the Lancaster House Constitution to the current charter. The organization has represented numerous clients in constitutional litigation and regularly provides legal analysis on governance issues.
Regional and International Implications
Constitutional amendments in SADC member states increasingly attract regional attention, particularly when they involve presidential powers or term limits. The African Union's African Charter on Democracy, Elections and Governance, which Zimbabwe has signed, emphasizes the importance of constitutional order and discourages unconstitutional changes of government.
While constitutional amendments through legitimate processes differ from unconstitutional changes, regional bodies have shown interest in ensuring that amendments respect democratic principles and maintain institutional checks on executive authority. The SADC Parliamentary Forum and other regional institutions have previously commented on constitutional developments in member states.
The government has not yet publicly responded to ZLHR's call for a referendum. Parliamentary debate on the bill will likely reveal the full scope of proposed changes and the government's justification for the amendments. Opposition parties and civil society organizations are expected to scrutinize the bill closely as it moves through the legislative process.
Whether the amendments ultimately require a referendum will depend on legal interpretation of the Constitution's provisions regarding amendment procedures—a question that could ultimately be resolved through the courts if civil society organizations choose to challenge the legislative route. The outcome will have significant implications for Zimbabwe's constitutional development and the balance of power between branches of government.