The escalating hysteria over Constitutional Amendment No. 3 of 2026, particularly within opposition circles, exposes not a crisis in the Constitution, but a crisis in collective political maturity and constitutional literacy. A constitution is not a relic preserved behind glass; it is a governing instrument built to operate in the present. It exists to organise power, correct defects and respond to changing realities. Amendment, in itself, is neither betrayal nor taboo – it is part of constitutional design.

What is troubling is not opposition, but the drift toward confrontation. Incitement to violence is not democratic engagement; it is a crime. Citizens have every right to reject a proposal. But when political actors begin invoking “physical action” and mass mobilisation in tones that hint at disruption, the conversation shifts from reasoned disagreement to calculated instability. More …