By Desire Tshuma
Harare — Dr Abigale Mupambi isn’t interested in the noise around Constitution Amendment Bill No. 3; she wants focus on the rules. “The good thing is the process—the constitutional process that must be followed from gazette to consultation, then committee reviews and readings in Parliament.
For as long as that pathway is followed, this is exactly how it should be,” she said. To her, divergent views aren’t a bug; they’re the point. “You cannot expect people to think the same or reason the same. What is more important is that the framework upon which an amendment should be done is followed.”
That framework, she argues, settles the heated referendum question. “There’s nothing wrong in viewing things or airing that a referendum is necessary, but is it provided for in terms of this current constitution?” Look closely, she says, and you won’t find a provision guiding Parliament to a referendum for most changes. Only three areas are singled out: Section 4 (the Bill of Rights), Section 16 (land) and Section 328 itself.
“Those are the very specified sections that warrant a referendum. Any other sections are amended through Parliament, through the legislative role we already gave Parliament.”
Mupambi draws a hard line at activism filling gaps the text doesn’t allow. “It is my view that whatever is not within the constitution cannot be brought in on centre stage by way of activism or political push, whatever kind of push. It should not find its way in, particularly when it’s not stipulated.”
Parliament has been out on consultation, but she says space remains for contributions—emails, hard copies—to reach MPs. “Different participants must take that opportunity so that we have rich, diverse contributions in Parliament.”
As committees and successive readings review Bill No. 3, she wants those Zimbabwean voices in the room—provided they argue within the constitution’s lanes, not outside them.