Human rights lawyer Doug Coltart has described the recent constitutional amendment as both “illegitimate” and “illegal”, arguing that the process leading to its enactment was fundamentally flawed and failed to meet constitutional requirements.
Coltart made the remarks during an X Space discussion hosted by CITE on Friday, where participants debated the legality and legitimacy of the constitutional changes, which President Emmerson Mnangagwa recently signed into law.
Among other changes, the amendment extends presidential and parliamentary terms from five years to seven and replaces the direct election of the president with election by members of Parliament and senators sitting jointly.
Coltart argued that the amendment lacked democratic legitimacy from the outset because voters were not told during the 2023 general elections that elected representatives intended to extend their terms of office.
On this topic
“No candidates went into the 2023 election telling the electorate that they intended to extend their mandate beyond the five years they had been given,” Coltart said.
He also questioned the legitimacy of the parliamentary supermajority that passed the amendment, alleging it was secured through the recall and replacement of opposition legislators rather than through fresh electoral mandates.
Coltart further criticised Parliament’s public consultation process, saying it was inadequate for a country of Zimbabwe’s size.
“The parliament’s public consultation process was flawed. The number of hearings held across the country were inadequate for a population of about 17 million people. Just over 60 public consultations for a population this huge is an absurdly low number,” he said.
According to Coltart, many public hearings were disrupted by violence, preventing opponents of the Bill from presenting their views.
He cited his own experience at the City Sports Centre public hearing in Harare, where he alleged he was assaulted and prevented from making submissions.
“I was violently assaulted and forcibly removed from the venue. I was not the only one. Across the country, people opposed to the Bill were prevented from speaking, while some were hospitalised after attacks,” he alleged.
Coltart also accused Parliament of rushing debate on the amendment and denying legislators sufficient opportunity to scrutinise its provisions.
He argued that the most significant legal issue was the absence of a referendum.
“The Constitution defines a term-limit provision as one that limits the length of time a person may hold office. This amendment extends that period and therefore required a referendum,” he said.
“The fact that government avoided a referendum suggests it knew the amendment did not enjoy genuine public support.”
Responding during the discussion, African Youth Congress chairperson Taurayi Kandishaya rejected Coltart’s arguments, maintaining that Parliament had complied with constitutional procedures and that the amendment was lawfully enacted.
He disputed Coltart’s interpretation of the referendum provisions, arguing that the Constitution requires a referendum only if the number of presidential terms is changed or removed, not when the length of each term is extended.
“The extension does not create another constitutional term. The Constitution still provides for a maximum of two presidential terms. Therefore, a referendum was not required,” Kandishaya said.
He also defended Parliament’s public consultation process, saying it had reached communities across the country despite practical limitations.
“Parliament conducted extensive outreach across the country. Realistically, the consultation process could not accommodate every citizen. Coltart argues he did not get a chance to speak, but in a country of more than 16 million people, one individual cannot become the measure of whether consultations were legitimate simply because they did not get an opportunity to speak,” he said.
Kandishaya said Parliament had followed the legislative process prescribed by the Constitution and noted that the amendment had already taken legal effect.
“The discussion should now move beyond whether the Bill should have passed. It is now an Act of Parliament and the focus should be on implementing it in accordance with the Constitution,” he said.
Leave a Reply