Church, civic leaders defend constitutional right to protest after July 31 stay-away

The July 31 stay-away called in opposition to Constitution Amendment Act No. 3 has renewed debate over the right to protest in Zimbabwe, with civic and church leaders arguing that peaceful demonstrations are protected by the Constitution despite concerns about shrinking civic space and heavy security deployments.

The stay-away, organised in protest against Constitution Amendment Act No. 3, left many streets quieter than usual as police maintained a heavy presence, deploying officers and armoured water cannons in major urban centres. While the government said the security deployment was necessary to maintain law and order, critics argued it discouraged citizens from exercising constitutionally protected rights.

Speaking on This Morning on Asakhe, a daily current affairs programme hosted by CITEZW on X, Reverend Dr Kenneth Mtata, said Zimbabwe’s Constitution clearly guarantees citizens the right to assemble, demonstrate and petition government.

“I think it’s important for us to highlight that our 2013 Constitution promotes and protects the rights of citizens to assemble, to demonstrate, and to petition the government,” said Mtata.

He said Sections 58 and 59 of the Constitution safeguard freedom of assembly, association, demonstration and petition, adding that Zimbabwe’s obligations under international human rights treaties also recognise the right to peaceful assembly.

Rev Mtata, however, said the treatment of demonstrations over the past decade raised concerns about the country’s commitment to those constitutional protections.

“We also need to highlight that in the last 10 years, we have seen many, many attempts of citizens to protest and to demonstrate, and in almost all circumstances, except in November 2017, almost all cases, such protests have been criminalised,” he said.

He said the official response to the July 31 stay-away appeared to portray protests as criminal acts rather than constitutionally protected forms of civic participation.

“What we saw being projected, the force being projected, the warnings, the threats made this appear like it’s something that is criminal,” he said.

Rev Mtata also questioned statements equating demonstrations with acts of war, saying peaceful protests should not be treated as treasonous.

“Why should we present protests and demonstrations as something that is criminal or treasonous? … It is a citizen’s civil duty to organise such protests and petition government where there are concerns from citizens,” he said.

Amalgamated Rural Teachers Union of Zimbabwe (ARTUZ) president Obert Masaraure said peaceful protest was a legitimate democratic process and argued that the July 31 stay-away was driven by concerns over both the substance of Constitution Amendment Act No. 3 and the process through which it was enacted.

“This particular protest was called in the context of a very controversial change to the Constitution and there are questions regarding the substantive elements of the changes, but there are also concerns, very serious concerns, about the process,” he said.

Masaraure said governments should view peaceful demonstrations as opportunities for civic engagement rather than threats to public order.

“But I think this is a culture that even the government must promote. A culture of protest ventilates pressure that is in society. You don’t suppress that in the hope that in so doing you are going to stop our citizens from expressing themselves,” he said.

Assessing the stay-away, Masaraure said he believed it had achieved its objective by persuading many Zimbabweans to remain at home.

“The people took heed of the call to stay away. We were in conversation with teachers across the country who reported that learners did not show up and the majority of teachers did not show up. So in fact, millions of Zimbabweans took heed of the call to stay away,” he said.

He argued that the action had also revived public debate over Constitution Amendment Act No. 3.

“The protest action helped to reignite the conversation… people are speaking again and people are saying we were not consulted about the constitutional amendment,” he said.

Masaraure said further demonstrations could follow if concerns surrounding the constitutional amendment remained unresolved and meaningful dialogue between citizens and the government did not take place.

“I think we should expect more and more protests if the current government does not provide for meaningful engagement with citizens,” he said.

Mtata, meanwhile, said the organisers themselves were best placed to determine whether the stay-away had achieved its political objectives, arguing that the broader issue was protecting citizens’ constitutional rights to peaceful assembly and protest regardless of differing views about the action itself.