\n<\/p>\n
2030 Agenda: Virginia Mabiza, Ziyambi Ziyambi Rule Out Referendum<\/p>\n<\/p><\/div>\n
Tinashe Sambiri\u2013 Attorney-General Virginia Mabiza has drawn criticism after bluntly dismissing calls for a referendum on the proposed constitutional changes, with critics arguing her stance shuts down public participation on a matter of national importance.<\/p>\n
In an interview with State media, Mabiza insisted that demands for a referendum are not based on law but are politically motivated \u2014 a claim that detractors say unfairly discredits legitimate concerns from citizens and civic groups.<\/p>\n
\u201cSection 328(6) is deliberate and precise in that it reserves the ultimate democratic veto \u2014 the national referendum \u2014 for only three narrowly defined categories of amendment: any Bill that touches Chapter 4 (the Declaration of Rights), Chapter 16 (Agricultural Land), or section 328 itself. <\/p>\n
In every other case, once a Constitution Bill secures the required two-thirds majority in both Houses of Parliament, it must be forwarded to the President for assent,\u201d she said.<\/p>\n
While Mabiza framed this as a clear legal position, critics argue that relying strictly on parliamentary numbers risks sidelining broader public input, especially on constitutional matters that shape the country\u2019s future.<\/p>\n
Mabiza further defended the framework, claiming it was designed to protect key provisions, but observers say the argument conveniently avoids the growing demand for wider consultation.<\/p>\n
\u201cI should emphasise that the constitutional basis for proceeding without a referendum is neither an option nor a loophole \u2014 328(6) is very clear on this aspect. Any insistence on a referendum, given the current scenario, is devoid of any meaningful legal basis and logic. It is an unconstitutional demand,\u201d said Mabiza.<\/p>\n
Her remarks have been seen by some as dismissive, with critics arguing that labelling opposing views as \u201cunconstitutional\u201d risks silencing debate rather than engaging with it.<\/p>\n
The controversy comes amid mounting pressure from stakeholders who argue that Constitutional Amendment Bill No. 3 should be subjected to a referendum to ensure public legitimacy, rather than being pushed through Parliament.<\/p>\n
Justice, Legal and Parliamentary Affairs Minister Ziyambi Ziyambi also weighed in, echoing Mabiza\u2019s stance and rejecting calls for a public vote \u2014 a position that has further fuelled accusations of government unwillingness to consult citizens.<\/p>\n
\u201cOn the issue of a referendum, let me explain it by saying, in 2013, when we came up with a completely new Constitution, we put in safeguards on how the Constitution is supposed to be amended and within that Constitution, which we took to the people for a referendum, we were given three scenarios where we require a referendum.<\/p>\n
\u201cThe people clearly indicated that don\u2019t come to us if you are amending this Constitution, if you are not touching these three. What you simply need is a two-thirds majority. So this amendment does not touch chapter four, does not touch chapter 16, does not touch section 328,\u201d Minister Ziyambi said.<\/p>\n
However, critics argue that invoking the 2013 framework ignores the current political climate, where trust in institutions is fragile and demands for transparency and accountability are growing.<\/p>\n
With both Mabiza and Ziyambi firmly ruling out a referendum, concerns are mounting that the government is prioritising procedural legality over democratic inclusivity, potentially deepening public mistrust around the constitutional reform process.<\/p>\n
\t\t\t<\/p>\n
<\/p><\/div>\n
\n