The 90-day consultation window for the Constitution of Zimbabwe Amendment (No. 3) Bill, 2026 may be too little to guarantee meaningful public participation, especially in a political environment marked by a fragmented opposition and weakened civic mobilisation, analysts have warned.
The core concern, raised by analysts, is not the duration of consultations but the capacity to mobilise citizens meaningfully across Zimbabwe’s provinces within that period, where effective outreach requires funding, logistical coordination, civic education and organisational infrastructure is needed.
These sentiments come after the gazetting of the Constitution of Zimbabwe Amendment (No. 3) Bill, 2026 on 16 February, which means the country has entered the mandatory 90-day constitutional waiting period prescribed under the country’s constitution.
During this phase, Parliament is expected to invite public submissions and conduct consultations before the Bill is formally tabled for debate.
After this 90 day window closes, the Bill will move to formal tabling in Parliament, where it will be debated in the National Assembly and Senate, undergo committee stage review, and then face separate votes in both Houses. A two-thirds majority will be required in each House.
Since the amendment touches entrenched provisions, it must then be subjected to a referendum before presidential assent. Only after assent does it become law.
While the law prescribes 90 days, analysts have argued that the substance of the proposed changes, particularly changes to how the President is elected, far more extensive national engagement is needed.
A political analyst, Future Msebele, said the 90-day consultation period may satisfy constitutional form but falls short of political reality.
“It is equally troubling that the opposition is in visible disarray. In 1999 the democratic movement was organic, anchored in the labour movement, the student unions and civic society. There was ideological clarity and structural mobilisation,” he said in an interview with CITE.
“Today, the centre does not hold. 90 days is a short window for mobilisation, especially for an opposition that lacks organisational coherence and mass structures.”
Msebele added that legal challenges alone would not be sufficient to fight the new amendment bill.
“Legal challenges are important, but law without organised political power rarely shifts material outcomes. The real question is whether a disciplined, united democratic force can be mobilised capable of defending constitutionalism beyond the courtroom, in an environment we all know that, in reality, law is the extension of politics,,” he said.
Msebele also described this current moment as historically significant, which necessitated more time to mobilise people.
“What we are witnessing is not a routine constitutional adjustment but a decisive reconfiguration of political power,” he said.
“Across the globe, we have seen how constitutional amendments have been used to consolidate incumbency. In Russia, Vladimir Putin re-engineered the constitutional order in 2020, effectively resetting his presidential terms. In Rwanda, Paul Kagame oversaw amendments that not only extended term limits but recalibrated the political clock in his favour. Zimbabwe must interrogate this moment with historical honesty.”
The Election Resource Centre (ERC), a democracy and electoral advocacy organisation, echoed concerns about the substance and process of the amendment.
ERC acknowledged that electoral systems may be reviewed and amended where necessary. However, ERC stated that such changes must be “inclusive” and anchored in national consensus, that “following wide-ranging stakeholder consultations, and should be subject to a referendum.”
The organisation argued that reforms of this magnitude should culminate in a referendum, particularly where they fundamentally alter how executive authority is derived.
“As it stands, the proposals have far-reaching consequences on participatory democracy and are being implemented without national consensus or stakeholder consultations in violation of Article 10 of the ACDEG,” ERC said in a statement, referring to the African Charter on Democracy, Elections and Governance.
“The proposals abandon the principle of government by consent.”
Another political analyst Iphithule Maphosa concurred, arguing that the gravity of the changes calls for more than the procedural timeline, since the consultations will not only determine the fate of Amendment No. 3 but the future of Zimbabwe’s constitutional democracy.
“The proposed changes call for nothing but a referendum, in its proper and correct format,” Maphosa said.
“The so-called consultations mean nothing if they do not culminate into a required referendum as demanded by the people and by the constitution that the regime is intent on replacing altogether.”
Maphosa stressed that the 90-day window would ordinarily be sufficient for less consequential amendments.
“Had it been a bill that does not warrant a referendum, 90 days would have been enough, provided Parliament is adequately resourced to carry out the programme,” he said.
“Indeed more time is needed because this is a new constitution altogether. An outreach for a constitutional makeover needs a long time to consult, a year or more.”
Support CITE’s fearless, independent journalism. Your donation helps us amplify community voices, fight misinformation, and hold power to account. Help keep the truth alive. Donate today