AN OPEN LETTER TO THE PEOPLE OF ZIMBABWE: THE CONSTITUTION CANNOT BE DEFENDED BY ATTACKING CONSTITUTIONAL ORDER
Fellow Zimbabweans,
I find it profoundly uncomfortable that such an elementary matter should require explanation in a country whose people rightly regard themselves as educated, politically conscious and intellectually discerning.
An intelligent nation should not be so easily manipulated by propaganda that disguises political disappointment as constitutional principle.
Let us begin with a simple question: who is the genuine constitutionalist? The political actor who submits a proposal to the procedures established by the Constitution – public consultation, parliamentary readings and debate, votes in both Houses – and accepts the outcome those institutions produce? Or the politician who praises the Constitution only when it favours him, and threatens disruption when it does not? Constitutionalism is not measured by how loudly one invokes the Constitution, but by whether one respects its institutions, procedures and outcomes even when they are politically inconvenient.
ZANUPF and its leader, His Excellency President Emmerson Dambudzo Mnangagwa, pursued constitutional reform openly, following resolutions adopted through the Party’s own structures. The amendments were not smuggled into law at midnight; they were publicly introduced, consulted upon, debated and voted upon by elected legislators. Whatever one’s opinion of their substance, the route chosen was the constitutional route. Nor was ZANUPF’s parliamentary strength ever a secret. A legislative majority is not an offence; it is the consequence of political organisation and electoral participation, and a party that wins sufficient seats acquires the constitutional authority to legislate within the limits the Constitution imposes.
Opposition politicians were entitled to oppose the Bill – to mobilise opinion, present alternative arguments, lobby legislators and approach the courts. What they were never entitled to assume was that their opposition amounted to a national veto. Jameson Timba, Charlton Hwende, Tendai Biti, Professor Lovemore Madhuku, Reverend Dr Kupakwashe Mtata and their associates must grasp this elementary distinction: the right to oppose a law is not the power to nullify it. If legislation were valid only when the opposition approved it, Parliament would become ceremonial, elections meaningless, and every defeated faction would hold an unelected veto over the State. That is minority rule.
The Constitution of Zimbabwe Amendment (No. 3) Act, 2026 is now part of Zimbabwe’s legal order. Citizens may support it, criticise it, campaign for its future amendment or challenge it before competent courts. What no person may lawfully do is declare himself exempt from it because he finds it politically undesirable. A law does not cease to be law because somebody writes an angry statement, convenes a coalition or manufactures a hashtag.
This is where some opposition figures are being dangerously dishonest with their followers. Many of them are lawyers. They know that constitutional disputes belong before the courts, legislative changes before Parliament and political disagreements within peaceful democratic competition. Yet they speak recklessly of making the country ungovernable and confronting the State outside legal channels, generating emotional heat while positioning themselves away from the consequences.
Let every Zimbabwean understand this clearly: freedom of expression is protected; violence is not. Peaceful organisation is lawful; destruction of property is not. Approaching the courts is constitutional; intimidation, sabotage and public disorder are not. The State has both the authority and the obligation to protect citizens, institutions and public order, and any person who commits an offence in the name of resisting the Constitution of Zimbabwe Amendment (No. 3) Act, 2026 must expect the lawful consequences of that conduct. That is the ordinary operation of the rule of law.
Those who encourage illegal conduct should tell their supporters the complete truth: when the crowds disperse and the cameras leave, individual participants remain personally answerable for assault, arson, malicious damage, obstruction or intimidation. Political slogans are not a defence in court, and the prominence of the politician who urged the action will not protect the citizen who carried it out. The opposition elite intellectualises confrontation from offices, churches and legal chambers; it is the ordinary young person who is pushed into the street to absorb the consequences. Ask those calling for confrontation whether their own children will stand in the front line, and whether they will provide legal representation or restore destroyed livelihoods when the excitement has passed.
There is a deeper contradiction in claiming to defend constitutionalism while suggesting that constitutional outcomes may be defeated through extra-constitutional pressure. One cannot defend the Constitution by suspending it, protect democracy by denying Parliament its authority, or preach the rule of law while promising disorder whenever the law disappoints. Constitutionalism is not an à la carte menu; it is a discipline requiring respect for process, institutional authority and legal continuity – and it binds the opposition no less than it binds ZANUPF.
ZANUPF will not apologise for using the parliamentary mandate it possesses. Democracy does not guarantee every participant victory; it guarantees participation, representation and lawful methods of contestation. Those who believe the amendment is defective may litigate, campaign, or seek an electoral mandate to advance a different constitutional programme. What they may not do is substitute political anger for constitutional authority.
To the generality of Zimbabweans, my appeal is direct: think before you are mobilised, read before you react, and distinguish lawful dissent from calculated provocation. Do not allow politicians who lost a parliamentary contest to convert their defeat into your criminal liability. You have every right to disagree with the Government and to advocate peaceful legal change, but no one’s frustration places him above the law.
The Constitution of Zimbabwe Amendment (No. 3) Act, 2026 remains law unless altered or invalidated through lawful constitutional mechanisms, and it binds the Government, the opposition and every citizen alike. That position is neither negotiable nor apologetic. It is the foundation upon which every constitutional State stands.
Akuruma nzeve ndewako.
Ndatenda.
Dereck R. Goto
A fellow citizen of Zimbabwe
Post a comment