Welshman Ncube Rejects Statement Attributed To Him On Constitutional Amendment Bill

Opposition politician and constitutional lawyer Welshman Ncube has distanced himself from a statement bearing his signature that appears to support the Zimbabwe Constitution Amendment Bill No. 3.

Ncube told The NewsHawks that the statement is fake and said he has not commented publicly on CAB3.

“As you know, I haven’t commented on CAB3, but I have written something and kept on changing it; I haven’t released it,” said Ncube.

Below is the statement:

“Constitutional questions should not be treated as ordinary partisan contests. Constitutions are not campaign manifestos or instruments of political convenience; they are frameworks that organise power, distribute responsibility, and secure accountability.

“For that reason, constitutional amendments should be judged by their impact on governance and the constitutional order, not by who supports or opposes them.

“It is in that context that I have followed the debate surrounding the Constitution of Zimbabwe Amendment Bill No. 3. What has concerned me is the growing suggestion that one must either accept the Bill entirely or reject it entirely.

“Such an approach is neither constitutionally sound nor intellectually persuasive.

“Serious constitutional engagement requires a more careful assessment, with each proposal evaluated on its own merits.

“Viewed in that way, CAB3 contains a mix of issues. Some provisions deserve closer scrutiny, others may require refinement, and some seek to address practical institutional challenges that have emerged since the adoption of the 2013 Constitution.

“Recognising this is not a departure from principle but an acknowledgement of experience.

“Constitutions must provide workable institutions, and where experience reveals weaknesses, it is reasonable to consider reform.

“At the same time, any proposal that risks weakening safeguards, concentrating power without accountability, or upsetting the constitutional balance must be examined rigorously.

“The task is therefore not to decide whether CAB3 is wholly good or wholly bad, but to identify which amendments strengthen governance and which may undermine constitutional protections. That is the standard that should guide legislators, legal practitioners, civil society, and citizens alike.

“A mature constitutional democracy depends not on the absence of disagreement but on the quality of its constitutional reasoning.

“As debate on Amendment Bill No. 3 continues, I hope it will focus less on political loyalties and more on the substantive constitutional questions involved, with due recognition that many of the proposed reforms seek to strengthen institutional effectiveness and address practical governance challenges in the long-term interests of the nation.”

Related:

CAB3: Why Zimbabwe’s Constitutional Amendment Bill No. 3 Undermines Democracy CCC Faction Disowns “Ncube’s CAB3 Statement”, Calls It “Malicious Fabrication”