The government of Zimbabwe has gazetted the draft Constitutional Amendment Bill No. 3 which proposes a new parliamentary process for the election of the President and extension of term of office for the President and Members of Parliament.
In short, the Bill provides that:
- the President would no longer be subject to direct election by citizens. Instead, Parliament would elect the Head of State by majority vote.
- the tenure of both the President and Members of Parliament would increase from five years to seven years.
- appointees for the Attorney-General’s Office must meet the qualifications required of a Supreme Court judge.
- the President would appoint 10 additional senators, raising the total number from 80 to 90.
- voter registration and the voters’ roll would move from the Zimbabwe Electoral Commission (ZEC) to the Registrar-General. A new Zimbabwe Electoral Delimitation Commission would be established to draw constituency and ward boundaries.
- the public interview process for judges would be abolished.
- the military’s constitutional duty would be redefined from “upholding” the Constitution to acting “in accordance with” it.
- the Zimbabwe Gender Commission would be abolished, with its functions transferred to the Human Rights Commission.
Section 92 of the Constitution provides for an election of the President together with Members of Parliament by ordinary eligible voters. However, Clause 2 of the Bill seeks to repeal this constitutional provision replacing it with a parliamentary process for electing the President.
Sections 95, 143 and 158 of the Constitution, which limit each presidential and parliamentary term to 5 years have substituted by clauses 3, 7 and 8 which extend the terms of office for both the President and MPs to 7 years each, meaning that the President would now occupy that seat for up to 14 years, instead of 10.
Opposition leaders and members of the legal profession have expressed interesting views regarding the amendments. Professor L. Madhuku has criticised the parliamentary and presidential term extension that it does not make sense that the President’s term be extended simply because the President has a project to complete. The amendment has been likened to a student who asks the invigilator to extend the examination time just because he could not finish in given time. The Constitution stipulated a maximum of two 5 yearlong terms for the President and MPs. They have long known about this. So, if it happens that they do not complete “their projects” another President will just continue with the project or start another one.
Less has been said about a direct election of the president. This is not surprising since it is not a unique phenomenon in any way – countries such as Botswana and South Africa do the same. Perhaps one may want to take issue, rather, in the intention behind that proposed amendment. When it comes to elections in Zimbabwe, the playing field has always been a point of contention with most in the opposition camp feeling that it is far from being fair. Even more so with the delimitation project that found opposition strongholds being merged to make opposition constituencies fewer, allegedly, and the ruling party’s being splitted to their advantage numerically. The effect of this is that, in light of the proposed indirect election of the President, the incumbent will have more seats in parliament, guaranteeing them a win over other opponents.
Moreover, popularity and politics of persons in Zimbabwe have influenced election outcomes. But with the introduction of the Bill, it does not matter which political figure commands the most support, it will matter more which party has more constituencies represented in parliament – this is where the delimitation project becomes a weapon for some. This is really something to follow closely, given that in Zimbabwe, some party leaders tend to be more popular than their parties – but as demonstrated above, that will no longer matter as at the end, it is the party that is more represented that decides who leads the nation.
What happens next?
The Constitutional Amendment Bill No.3 is not an ordinary bill for it amends the Constitution. As such, section 328 of the Constitution determines procedure to be followed before it is enacted into law:
- The Speaker of Parliament must give at least 90 days’ notice in the Gazette of “the precise terms of the Bill”. This allows the public to see precisely what amendments are proposed and gives them three months in which to discuss the amendments and lobby their members of Parliament for and against them.
- During the 90-day period Parliament must convene meetings and provide facilities for members of the public to express their views on the Bill.
- At its final reading in each House of Parliament the Bill must be passed by a two-thirds majority of the members of the House concerned.
