Fresh concerns continue to arise over the provisions of the controversial Constitution of Zimbabwe Amendment (No. 3) Bill, 2026 , as it also seeks to repeal a clause that prohibits traditional leaders from participating in partisan politics, a move that analysts said could entrench political bias and deepen divisions in rural communities.
Clause 20 of the Bill proposes to amend Section 281 of the Constitution by repealing subsection (2), the provision that currently compels chiefs, headmen and village heads to remain politically neutral.
The clause reads: “Amendment of section 281 of Constitution: Section 281 (‘Principles to be observed by traditional leaders’) of the Constitution is amended by the repeal of subsection (2).”
Under the current Constitution, Section 281(2) clearly states that traditional leaders must not:
“be members of any political party or participate in partisan politics; act in a partisan manner; further the interests of any political party or cause; or violate the fundamental rights and freedoms of any person.”
Subsection (1) further obliges traditional leaders to act in accordance with the Constitution and treat all persons within their areas equally and fairly.
By repealing subsection (2), the amendment would remove the constitutional prohibition on chiefs and other traditional leaders joining political parties or engaging in partisan political activity.
The Bill states that their code of conduct would instead be provided for in an Act of Parliament.
The Election Resource Centre (ERC), a democracy and electoral advocacy organisation, has described the proposal as “particularly alarming” as it would allow traditional leaders to be members of any political party and participate in partisan politics.
“Traditional leaders serve as custodians of the culture, values and unity of society. Allowing traditional leaders to engage in partisan politics risks undermining this role in communities with diverse political views, potentially deepening polarisation, mistrust and division.” the organisation said.
The ERC warned that although the proposed amendments claim to promote cohesion and stability, formally permitting traditional leaders to take part in party politics could produce the opposite effect.
“Although the proposed amendments claim to promote cohesion and stability, partisan conduct by traditional leaders would undermine those objectives,” the organisation said.
It further noted that partisanship among traditional leaders has previously been cited as a source of voter intimidation in rural communities.
“ERC notes that such partisanship has been a source of voter coercion in rural communities and formally permitting traditional leaders to join political parties without widespread consensus potentially institutionalises intimidation and coercion, contrary to SADC requirements for an environment free from duress.”
A legal expert, Dr Vusumuzi Sibanda, said the proposed repeal raises serious constitutional and democratic concerns.
“There appears to be no compelling constitutional principle behind such changes, other than the political objective of entrenching partisan control,” he said.
Dr Sibanda said it was necessary to acknowledge the political realities surrounding traditional leadership in Zimbabwe.
“Many of the chiefs are appointed by the government and receive benefits such as vehicles and other forms of state support. As a result, they are often perceived as partisan,” he said.
“During times of drought or when food aid and agricultural inputs are distributed, there have been allegations that assistance is sometimes allocated on the basis of political affiliation. Those perceived to support Zanu PF may receive preferential treatment, while communities viewed as anti–Zanu PF may not be assisted in the same manner.”
Dr Sibanda warned formalising the political involvement of traditional leaders would effectively legitimise what critics say already happens informally.
“This raises concerns that traditional leaders could effectively become campaign agents on the ground for Zanu PF,” he said.
He said communities that do not support the ruling party risk further marginalisation.
“Once that happens, communities that do not support Zanu PF in areas under the authority of these traditional leaders risk complete exclusion. Even now, some people feel marginalised simply because they do not share the same political sentiments, despite the fact that traditional leaders are not openly declared party members,” Dr Sibanda.
If chiefs and other leaders are officially allowed to align themselves with a political party, he added, they are likely to receive even greater state patronage.
“It is reasonable to expect they will receive even more preferential treatment for openly supporting Zanu PF,” Dr Sibanda said.
“Such changes would not be neutral, they would serve to consolidate Zanu PF’s political strength by embedding party influence across all sectors of society, including traditional leadership structures.”
Dr Sibanda also questioned the broader constitutional implications of amending the constitution crafted through an extensive consultative process.
“Looking at the issue of traditional leaders and the Constitution of Zimbabwe, one realises that the Constitution that was crafted with the aid of trying to consult the people can then be drastically altered through Acts of Parliament and amendments passed by Members of Parliament who do not necessarily represent the majority of the people,” he said.
“Unfortunately, given the political context in which there have been allegations of electoral irregularities and concerns that a significant portion of the population is not fully represented, this becomes even more troubling.”
Zimbabwe does not operate under a fully proportional representation system, a reality, which Dr Sibanda said makes the sweeping constitutional amendments even more sensitive.
“If President Mnangagwa won by 51 or 52 percent of the vote, it means that 48 percent of Zimbabweans did not support him. That, in itself, is a very dangerous principle in any democratic society when constitutional changes are made without broader consensus,” he said, adding that constitutionalism is premised on broad social agreement.
“We know how constitution-making processes work. People are consulted and guided in contributing to decisions that ultimately become the supreme law of the land. It’s deeply concerning that after such extensive consultative processes, sudden amendments are introduced that appear to subvert the will of the people.”
Meanwhile, the ERC said Parliament has both the authority and responsibility to prevent constitutional backsliding.
“Parliament possesses the means, if not the will, to address the concerns and issues arising from the proposed Constitutional Amendment without the Courts or provoking widespread discontent. It is the duty of Parliament to uphold constitutional supremacy and to protect the voice of the citizens,” the organisation said.
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