Pro-democracy activists seek to derail CAB3, citing ‘violent and sham’ public hearings

TWO Zimbabwean pro-democracy activists have filed an urgent High Court application seeking to stop the country’s controversial constitutional amendment process, alleging that public consultations were marred by violence, intimidation and systematic exclusion of dissenting voices.

In papers filed at the High Court in Harare, Allan Chipoyi, former University of Zimbabwe (UZ) Students Representative Council president, and former legislator Amos Chibaya accuse the Parliament of Zimbabwe and other state respondents of presiding over what they describe as a fundamentally flawed and unconstitutional consultation process on the proposed Constitutional Amendment Bill No. 3 of 2026.

The applicants argue that hearings held across the country between March 30 and April 4 “failed the test of fairness and inclusivity,” and should be declared null and void.

“This was not a consultation process,” the application states.

“It was a sham and a mockery of the constitutional right to freedom of expression and participation.”

The urgent application seeks to bar Parliament and the Speaker from proceeding with the next stages of the Bill, including tabling reports and a second reading, until fresh, “safe and inclusive” public hearings are conducted.

At the heart of the dispute is the proposed amendment to extend presidential and parliamentary terms from five to seven years, a move critics say could reshape Zimbabwe’s political landscape. The applicants argue that such a significant constitutional change requires a genuinely participatory process, which they say did not occur.

They allege that in multiple cities including Harare, Bulawayo, Mutare, Masvingo and Gweru citizens opposed to the Bill were “physically assaulted, intimidated, and barred from expressing their views.”

The court papers describe scenes of chaos at public hearings, particularly at Harare’s City Sports Centre, where Chipoyi says he was denied an opportunity to speak.

In Gweru, Chibaya claims he was forcibly silenced while presenting his submission.

“This right was taken away from them in the most brutal fashion,” the applicants state.

“Partisan activists… barred opposing voices on purpose.”

Chibaya, who served multiple terms as Mkoba legislator before his ouster, describes a hostile and tightly controlled environment at a hearing in Gweru, where he says access was restricted and dissent was violently suppressed.

“By choosing a matchbox venue… the Respondent effectively disenfranchised thousands of citizens before the hearing even commenced,” he says in his supporting affidavit, adding that proceedings were dominated by “gatekeepers” who screened participants based on perceived political affiliation.

“When I began to outline my objections… I was drowned out by heckling and threats… some individuals approached me and physically grabbed my microphone,” Chibaya states.

The applicants further allege that the consultation process was deliberately rushed, with hearings compressed into just six days despite a constitutional requirement for broader public engagement.

“This haste… was the first sign of a process designed to satisfy the letter of the law while systematically subverting its spirit,” the application argues.

The case also cites reported incidents of violence against other participants, including legal practitioners and civic actors, as well as findings by the Zimbabwe Human Rights Commission, which reportedly documented intimidation, exclusion and physical assaults during the hearings.

According to the filing, the applicants issued an ultimatum to Parliament to reconvene the hearings, which expired on April 14 without response prompting the urgent court action.

“The 1st Respondent’s refusal to act… is a clear indication of its intention to proceed… with a Bill where the views of applicants were not captured,” the application states.

The applicants argue that allowing the process to continue would cause “irreparable harm” and result in a constitutional amendment founded on an unlawful and unrepresentative process.

“If the process is allowed to proceed, the constitutional amendment process will be irreversibly tainted,” they warn.

They are asking the court to declare the initial hearings invalid and compel authorities to conduct fresh consultations that meet constitutional standards.

The High Court is yet to set a date for the hearing of the urgent application.