Law Society Of Zimbabwe Says Constitutional Amendment Bill Requires A Referendum

The Law Society of Zimbabwe (LSZ) has warned parliament that several provisions contained in the Constitutional Amendment (No. 3) Bill are unconstitutional, arguing that proposals to extend presidential and parliamentary terms from five to seven years cannot legally apply to sitting officeholders without first being approved through a referendum.

In submissions dated May 15, 2026, the LSZ said clauses 4, 9 and 10 of the proposed amendment effectively attempt to bypass section 328(7) of the Constitution, which prohibits changes to presidential term limits from benefiting incumbents already in office.

The Society argued that the drafters had deliberately tried to circumvent constitutional safeguards by inserting a “notwithstanding” clause into clause 4(2a), which seeks to override the normal operation of section 328(7).

It added that because section 328(9) stipulates that section 328 itself can only be amended through a referendum, passing the clauses without a public vote would also violate Zimbabwe’s obligations under international and regional treaties, including the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the African Charter on Democracy, Elections and Governance.

The LSZ also criticised proposals to transfer voter registration responsibilities from the Zimbabwe Electoral Commission to the Registrar-General, whose office falls under presidential authority.

According to the Society, the move would place executive control over a function intentionally designed to remain independent from executive influence.

It warned that the transfer would undermine the constitutional right to free, fair and regular elections as protected under section 67 of the Constitution, as well as international obligations contained in the ICCPR and the African Charter on Democracy, Elections and Governance.

The Society raised similar objections to plans for a proposed Zimbabwe Electoral Delimitation Commission, which would assume responsibility for constituency boundary delimitation from ZEC. Under the proposals, commissioners would be appointed directly by the president.

“The ZEDC lacks adequate institutional independence because of the direct appointment of its members by the president,” the LSZ said.

It suggested that the concerns could be addressed by introducing constitutional guarantees of independence and involving the Judicial Service Commission or another independent body in the appointment process.

The LSZ further objected to proposals allowing the president to appoint 10 additional senators, increasing the size of the Senate from 80 to 90 members.

“A presidential power to unilaterally appoint an additional 10 senators out of a total of 90 can materially distort the proportional outcomes achieved through the popular voting process,” the Society said.

The organisation was equally critical of clause 15, which seeks to give the president sole authority to appoint judges after merely consulting the Judicial Service Commission, replacing the current system in which the JSC publicly interviews and nominates candidates for the High Court.

“The proposed amendment would structurally undermine the independence of judges by reducing the role of the JSC in the appointment of judges to a merely advisory function and vesting the exclusive power of appointment in the President,” the LSZ said.

On the appointment of the Prosecutor-General, the Society said removing the requirement for the president to act on the advice of the Judicial Service Commission would directly weaken the constitutional independence of the office.

The LSZ also opposed the proposed repeal of section 281(2) of the Constitution, which bars traditional leaders from participating in partisan politics.

“Key aspects of the role and responsibilities of traditional leaders, such as resolving disputes and exercising authority over communal lands, are fundamentally incompatible with their acting in a partisan manner or furthering the interests of a particular political party,” it said.

Despite its objections to several clauses, the Society said eight other provisions in the Bill — including the proposal to replace direct presidential elections with parliamentary election of the president and the abolition of the Zimbabwe Gender Commission — did not raise major constitutional concerns.

However, it warned that abolishing the Gender Commission could lead to the “deprioritising or under-resourcing of gender-related human rights matters”.