Opposition legislator Agency Gumbo has rejected proposals contained in Constitutional Amendment Bill No. 3 (CAB3) that would remove the direct election of the President, arguing that citizens must not be stripped of their right to choose the country’s head of state.
Making his submissions in Parliament, Gumbo noted that the proposal is one of the most consequential changes contained in the Bill, saying presidential authority derives directly from the people and not from Parliament.
“In a constitutional republic, sovereignty belongs to the people. The President derives legitimacy directly from the citizens,” he said.
“The right to choose the head of state directly is not a procedural detail, it is a democratic principle. The people should elect the president. Parliament should not replace the people as the source of presidential legitimacy.”
On this topic
Gumbo argued that any shortcomings in electoral administration should be addressed through reforms that strengthen democratic institutions rather than by removing citizens from the electoral process.
“If there are deficiencies regarding electoral administration, we must strengthen electoral administration. However, we do not resolve challenges by removing citizens from the centre of the democratic process,” he argued.
The legislator also objected to provisions that would allow incumbents to benefit from constitutional amendments extending terms of office.
He said Section 328(7) of the Constitution was deliberately crafted to prevent office holders from benefiting from amendments that alter tenure provisions.
“The framers of the constitution deliberately inserted safeguards preventing incumbents from benefiting from amendments that extend tenure,” Gumbo said.
He argued that the safeguard was intended to ensure constitutional neutrality and prevent amendments from becoming instruments for self-extension by those already in power.
“Yet this Bill seeks to provide that the very incumbents who are presently in office, the president, parliament and councils, may benefit from the extension of tenure,” he said.
Gumbo warned that overriding such constitutional protections would weaken the principle of constitutional restraint and set a dangerous precedent.
“If constitutional safeguards can simply be overridden whenever it becomes convenient, what purpose do they then serve? What then remains of constitutional restraint?” he asked.
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
Leave a Reply