The Fight for Zimbabwe's Ballot: Inside the High-Stakes Legal Challenge to CAB3

 By Ettar Patience Mhlanga

3^rd November, 2026

Zimbabwe’s Constitutional Court has reserved judgment in a major legal challenge against Constitutional Amendment No. 3 (CAB3), bringing renewed attention to the country’s political future, democratic rights and constitutional governance. The case, brought by two war veterans, Eliphas Kawa and Hazvineyi Machingura, challenges important provisions of the constitutional amendment signed into law by President Emmerson Mnangagwa on 7 July 2026.

The legal proceedings have attracted considerable public interest because they concern the rights of Zimbabwean citizens to choose their political leadership and the constitutional procedures required to make significant changes to the country’s governing framework. The case has also become an important part of the wider debate between supporters of the amendment and those who believe it threatens democratic accountability.

The controversial amendment introduces major changes to Zimbabwe’s political and electoral arrangements. Among its most significant provisions are the extension of presidential and parliamentary terms from five to seven years, the postponement of the next general election from 2028 to 2030 and the removal of direct presidential elections by popular vote. Under the new arrangements, the President is elected by members of Parliament sitting jointly as the Senate and National Assembly.

These changes have raised serious questions about the future of democratic participation in Zimbabwe. Critics argue that removing the direct presidential vote reduces ordinary citizens' ability to exercise their constitutional right to choose the country’s head of state. They also argue that extending political terms changes the electoral timetable and affects the accountability of elected leaders to the electorate.

During the parliamentary process, the amendment received 216 votes in the National Assembly, exceeding the required two-thirds majority. However, 42 Citizens Coalition for Change (CCC) members of Parliament voted against it, demonstrating the political divisions surrounding the proposed constitutional changes.

Kawa and Machingura have approached the Constitutional Court, arguing that the amendment cannot remove citizens’ right to elect a President of their choice under Section 67 of the Constitution without a national referendum. They have also challenged the provision that allows the President to appoint 10 additional senators, arguing that it undermines the Constitution's basic structure.

The applicants have named the Minister of Justice, Legal and Parliamentary Affairs, Parliament, the President and the Attorney-General as respondents in the proceedings. Their legal representatives, including constitutional lawyer Tendai Biti and Advocate Lewis Uriri, have argued that the case raises important questions about citizens’ voting rights, constitutional supremacy and access to justice.

An important part of the proceedings concerns whether the applicants should be allowed to approach the Constitutional Court directly rather than first taking their case through the High Court. This is significant because access to constitutional remedies is itself an important part of protecting citizens’ rights. The court’s decision on this preliminary issue will determine whether the applicants can proceed directly with their substantive constitutional challenge.

The Constitution Defenders Forum (CDF), led by former Finance Minister Tendai Biti, has supported the campaign to defend constitutionalism and encouraged Zimbabweans to attend the court proceedings in solidarity with the applicants. Following the hearing on 2 November, the organisation welcomed the support shown by citizens inside Zimbabwe and those following the proceedings from abroad.

The forum reiterated its commitment to peaceful and lawful efforts to defend constitutional supremacy, democratic governance and the rights of Zimbabwean citizens. Its position reflects growing concern among constitutional campaigners that the changes introduced through CAB3 require careful judicial examination.

The case is not the only legal challenge against the constitutional amendment. Other applications have also been brought before the courts, including a separate challenge by the Movement for Democratic Change (MDC), which argues that a national referendum was required before the President could assent to the amendment under Section 328(6) of the Constitution.

The legal disputes have intensified political debate in Zimbabwe, with opposition groups and civil society organisations questioning whether the constitutional changes adequately protect citizens' democratic rights. Supporters of the amendment maintain that the required parliamentary procedures were followed, while critics insist that the changes affect fundamental constitutional principles and should receive wider public approval.

Beyond the courtroom, the controversy has important implications for freedom of expression, political participation and peaceful assembly. Citizens, opposition supporters, journalists and human rights defenders have continued to debate the amendment and its potential consequences for the country’s democratic institutions.

Zimbabweans living abroad have also followed the developments closely. Diaspora communities, particularly those involved in human rights advocacy, have used online discussions, petitions and demonstrations to express their concerns about CAB3 and the future of constitutional democracy in Zimbabwe. These activities demonstrate that political developments in Zimbabwe remain a major concern for citizens both at home and overseas.

Political parties, civil society organisations and members of the public will closely watch the Constitutional Court’s decision. However, it is important to recognise that the court has only reserved judgment in this particular application. It has not yet ruled that CAB3 is unconstitutional or upheld the applicants’ arguments. The substantive legal questions remain subject to judicial determination.

The ongoing legal battle highlights the importance of an independent judiciary and the protection of constitutional rights. A democratic constitution should provide safeguards against the excessive concentration of political power and ensure that citizens retain meaningful opportunities to participate in decisions affecting their country.

Zimbabwe now faces an important constitutional moment. The outcome of the court challenges could influence the future of presidential elections, parliamentary representation and the relationship between political leadership and the electorate.

For many Zimbabweans, the central issue is not simply the extension of terms in office but the protection of their democratic rights and the principle that public authority should remain accountable to the people.

As the country awaits the Constitutional Court’s judgment, the debate over CAB3 continues to reflect wider concerns about democracy, constitutionalism and the future of political freedom in Zimbabwe.

About the authors
Ettar Patience Mhlanga is a human rights defender and political activist based in the United Kingdom. She is an active member of the Constitution Defenders Forum (CDF) UK Federation. She is also in the North Branch of the UK Chapter of the Restoration of Human Rights (ROHR) Zimbabwe and is a member of the Zimbabwe Human Rights Organisation (ZHRO). She can be contacted by email at mhlangaettarpatience@gmail.com

ZIMBABWE’S UNFINISHED LIBERATION: A NATION HELD HOSTAGE BY FEAR, CORRUPTION AND POLITICAL REPRESSION

By Samuel Jambaya

3rd November 2026

Zimbabwe attained independence in 1980 after a painful and bloody struggle against colonial oppression, with thousands of lives sacrificed in the hope that future generations would enjoy freedom, dignity, equality and justice. The people believed that independence would mark the end of oppression, that no citizen would again be forced to live in fear of those exercising political power, and that the nation’s wealth would finally serve its own people. Yet, decades later, a fundamental question remains: what is the meaning of independence when citizens are afraid to speak, when political disagreement can expose a person to intimidation and violence, when public institutions appear incapable of protecting ordinary people, and when the population that fought for liberation continues to struggle for the most necessities of life? ZANU-PF has governed Zimbabwe since independence, but the passage of time in power must never be confused with the achievement of freedom. A liberation movement does not acquire permanent ownership of a nation simply because it participated in the struggle for independence. Zimbabwe belongs to its citizens, not to a political party, a ruling elite or individuals who believe that questioning their leadership is an act of treason. True independence means that the people possess the freedom to choose their leaders, criticise their government, demand accountability and live without fear of political retaliation. When these freedoms are threatened, the promise of liberation remains incomplete.

The most disturbing feature of Zimbabwe’s political environment is the fear surrounding the exercise of fundamental human rights. Freedom of expression, peaceful assembly and political participation are not privileges granted by a ruling party; they are fundamental rights that governments are obliged to respect and protect. Nevertheless, reports by Amnesty International have repeatedly documented arbitrary arrests, harassment of perceived opponents, intimidation of activists and restrictions on peaceful dissent in Zimbabwe. In its report on the country’s human rights situation in 2025, Amnesty International documented arrests of opposition supporters and activists, including the arrest of journalist Blessed Mhlanga in February 2025 and the detention of journalists covering demonstrations on 31 March 2025. The organisation also reported that more than 90 activists opposing proposed constitutional changes were arrested on 31 March 2025. These are not imaginary political concerns; they are documented incidents that demand public scrutiny and accountability. Amnesty International, Zimbabwe 2025 report. When citizens come to believe that their safety depends on political silence, democracy is reduced to a performance in which the population is permitted to vote but discouraged from questioning those who govern.

The disappearance of journalist and pro-democracy activist Itai Dzamara remains one of the most painful examples of the consequences of political activism in Zimbabwe. On 9 March 2015, five men abducted Dzamara from a barber shop in Harare’s Glen View suburb. He had previously called for political change and criticised the government. Despite a High Court order directing the authorities to search for him and report on their progress, his whereabouts remained unknown ten years later. In March 2025, Amnesty International renewed its demand for an independent investigation into his disappearance, criticising the authorities’ failure to establish what happened to him. Amnesty International, 7 March 2025. The question Zimbabweans must ask is simple: how can citizens have confidence in the justice system when someone can disappear after engaging in political activism, and the truth remains elusive for a decade? A government cannot credibly claim to protect its citizens while such cases remain unresolved. Justice delayed for a decade is not merely a legal failure; it is a continuing source of suffering for families and a warning to others who may wish to speak out.

The concerns surrounding Kelvin Bhonzo’s death have added another painful dimension to this crisis. According to reporting by CITE, the Zimbabwe Peace Project condemned his death in July 2026 after he reportedly succumbed to injuries sustained in an alleged politically motivated assault in Chitungwiza. The organisation said the assault had been documented in its June 2026 human rights monitoring report and that suspected ZANU-PF supporters had allegedly attacked him because of his association with opposition to Constitutional Amendment Bill No. 3, subsequently enacted as Constitutional Amendment Act No. 3. CITE, 28 July 2026. These allegations must be investigated independently, and those responsible must be brought to justice if the evidence establishes their guilt. However, the wider political question cannot be ignored: why should anyone face the possibility of violence for opposing a constitutional amendment? Why should a citizen’s political opinion become a threat to personal safety? A constitution should protect the people from the abuse of power, not become a battleground where the interests of political officeholders take precedence over citizens’ rights. The death of any individual in circumstances allegedly connected to political disagreement deserves a transparent investigation, not silence, intimidation or the dismissal of public concern. No political party has the right to determine whose life matters and whose suffering can be ignored.

The controversy surrounding Constitutional Amendment No. 3 also raises serious questions about the future of democratic accountability in Zimbabwe. In October 2025, Amnesty International reported that ZANU-PF had adopted a proposal to amend the Constitution to extend President Emmerson Mnangagwa’s tenure by two years, from its scheduled end in 2028 to 2030. Opposition figures challenged the proposal, while human rights concerns grew over the treatment of those resisting it. Amnesty International subsequently reported attacks on constitutional lawyer Professor Lovemore Madhuku and other political activists on 1 March 2026. According to the organisation, armed men attacked participants at a meeting in Harare while uniformed police officers were present. Amnesty called for an independent investigation and an end to the crackdown on peaceful dissent. Amnesty International, 2 March 2026. These events raise a fundamental democratic concern: a constitution should not be manipulated to protect individuals' political futures at the expense of the people’s right to periodic, meaningful elections. Political leaders are temporary custodians of public office, not permanent owners of the state. The legitimacy of any constitutional change depends not merely on whether it can be passed through formal procedures, but also on whether citizens can freely debate it, oppose it and participate in the process without intimidation. A government that claims to represent the people must be prepared to listen to them, even when their demands threaten the comfort or ambitions of those in power.

The allegations surrounding the Gold Mafia investigations provide another troubling example of the questions surrounding the management of Zimbabwe’s national wealth. In March and April 2023, Al Jazeera published an investigative series examining alleged gold smuggling and money laundering involving individuals connected to Zimbabwe’s gold trade, including prominent figures and a diplomat serving as ambassador-at-large. The investigation featured undercover recordings in which individuals discussed arrangements to move gold and launder money. The Zimbabwean government subsequently announced that it would investigate the allegations, stating that anyone found to have committed criminal acts would face the law. The individuals and entities featured in the investigation did not all accept the allegations, and the claims must be distinguished from criminal findings established by a court.

Nevertheless, the investigation raised legitimate questions about the integrity of institutions responsible for regulating the gold trade and protecting public revenue. Al Jazeera, 5 April 2023. Zimbabwe is rich in mineral resources, yet this natural wealth has not translated into reliable public services and economic security for millions of citizens. Gold should help finance hospitals, schools, roads, employment and national development. It should not become a source of enrichment for a privileged few while ordinary families struggle to afford food, medication and transport. The issue is not whether Zimbabwe should benefit from its gold; it is whether Zimbabweans are receiving the benefits of their own resources. Every unresolved allegation involving public officials, politically connected individuals or state-linked institutions must be examined through independent investigations, transparent financial records and fair legal proceedings. National wealth belongs to the nation, and citizens have every right to demand an explanation when they believe it is being lost through corruption or illicit activity.

Perhaps nowhere is the failure of public accountability felt more directly than in the healthcare system. For many ordinary Zimbabweans, going to a public hospital no longer brings the reassurance that medical care is available when life is at risk. Instead, it can bring fear, uncertainty and the terrifying possibility that a treatable condition may become fatal because essential medicines, equipment, trained personnel or emergency services are unavailable. For many desperate families, going to the hospital feels like being handed a death sentence rather than being given a chance to live. I use this expression to describe the fear and despair created by a healthcare system in which patients may arrive seeking treatment only to encounter shortages, delays and inadequate facilities. No patient should have to wonder whether entering a hospital will be the beginning of recovery or the start of a tragedy. A hospital should be a place where life is protected, pain is relieved, and families are given hope. It must never become an institution where poverty determines whether someone receives treatment in time.

This concern is supported by evidence of serious healthcare challenges. In March 2025, the news agency EFE reported that Zimbabwe’s health minister had announced at least 300 newborn deaths and 54 maternal deaths since January amid a crisis involving shortages of essential medical equipment, life-saving medication and experienced healthcare professionals. The reported figures included 111 neonatal deaths and 19 maternal deaths in Harare. EFE, 6 March 2025. UNICEF’s 2024 annual report also identified inadequate or obsolete equipment, medicine stockouts, dwindling financing and an insufficient health workforce as continuing challenges to healthcare delivery in Zimbabwe. UNICEF Zimbabwe, 2024 Annual Report. These findings demonstrate that the crisis is not simply a matter of political rhetoric. They point to structural problems affecting patients, families and medical professionals. When essential equipment is unavailable, medical supplies run out, and hospitals cannot consistently provide the services people need, the consequences can be devastating. My own family has experienced the burden of this situation. When my younger sister broke her arm, we had to obtain certain medication ourselves to facilitate her treatment. That experience showed me how distressing it is for a family to seek medical help and then discover that obtaining the necessary supplies becomes an additional responsibility. A patient’s access to treatment should not depend on whether their family has enough money to purchase what a public hospital cannot provide.

The situation becomes even more troubling when reports describe medical procedures conducted under inadequate lighting, including the alleged use of candles or mobile phone torches, or patients being required to purchase supplies before treatment can proceed. Such individual incidents should be documented and investigated, but the principle is beyond dispute: safe surgery requires appropriate equipment, lighting, sterilisation, medicines and trained professionals. Patients should not be exposed to avoidable risks due to public facilities lacking the resources to operate safely. Healthcare workers also deserve fair pay, adequate supplies and working conditions that allow them to perform their duties professionally. Underpaid nurses and doctors, shortages of experienced personnel and deteriorating facilities are symptoms of a system that requires urgent reform. It is unjust to expect medical professionals to preserve lives while denying them the resources they need to do their jobs. Equally, ordinary citizens should not bear the consequences of failures in public administration and financing. The government must explain how healthcare budgets are allocated, how medical supplies are procured and distributed, and what concrete steps are being taken to restore the capacity of public hospitals. The right to life means little in practice if a citizen cannot obtain timely, affordable and safe medical treatment.

It is especially difficult for ordinary Zimbabweans to understand these hardships when individuals with considerable financial resources can seek treatment abroad while the majority struggle to obtain care at home. The point is not that anyone should be denied medical treatment outside Zimbabwe. Every person has the right to seek appropriate care. The real question is why the national healthcare system is unable to offer ordinary citizens the same confidence in accessing essential treatment. If public hospitals are sufficiently reliable for everyone, why do so many families fear using them? If the nation’s resources are being managed in the interests of the people, why must patients search for medicines, pay for supplies or travel long distances for services that should be accessible locally? These questions demand answers rooted in budgets, procurement records, staffing figures and measurable improvements, not political speeches. The government must be judged not by the promises it makes but by the lives it protects.

The same principle applies to emergency services. An ambulance is not a luxury; it can be the difference between life and death. When a patient suffers a medical emergency, there may be no time for a family to search for transport, negotiate costs or appeal to politically connected individuals for assistance. Every community requires dependable emergency response systems, functioning ambulances, trained personnel and accessible medical facilities. Where ambulances are unavailable because of shortages or resource constraints, the causes must be investigated and addressed. If public funds have been diverted or mismanaged, the evidence must be established, and those responsible held accountable through due process. Citizens should never have to question whether their survival depends on their political affiliation, financial status or connections to the ruling party. Public services exist to serve the public. Their purpose is defeated when access to essential assistance becomes a privilege rather than a basic component of citizenship.

Zimbabwe’s political and economic problems are also reflected in the treatment of citizens forced to leave the country in search of safety or economic opportunity. Zimbabweans living in South Africa and elsewhere have faced difficult circumstances, including xenophobic hostility, economic insecurity and, in some cases, forced or assisted returns. Whenever citizens return home under distressing circumstances, the government has a responsibility to ensure that they receive humane treatment, emergency assistance and support with reintegration. Reports that returnees have experienced shortages of food, shelter or transportation deserve serious scrutiny. People who have already endured hardship should not be abandoned upon reaching their own country. Their circumstances should prompt questions about employment, economic opportunity, public assistance and the conditions that forced so many people to seek livelihoods beyond Zimbabwe’s borders in the first place. A government cannot celebrate national sovereignty while failing to address the circumstances that leave its citizens struggling to survive abroad. Nor should the suffering of returning citizens be treated as less important than political ceremonies, luxury travel or the interests of those with access to public resources. Every Zimbabwean deserves dignity, regardless of where they have lived or the circumstances under which they return.

The concerns about political repression extend beyond Zimbabwe’s borders, particularly among activists in the diaspora who continue to campaign for democratic reform. Zimbabweans abroad retain the right to express their political opinions, organise peaceful demonstrations and call for accountability. Their geographical location should not deprive them of their dignity or legitimate democratic freedoms. Concerns about intimidation, surveillance and possible retaliation against activists who criticise the government must be taken seriously and investigated where credible evidence exists. The law commonly referred to as the Patriot Act has also attracted criticism from those who fear that broad restrictions on engagement with foreign governments could be used to discourage dissent. Such concerns must be assessed in light of the law’s actual provisions and their implementation. Still, the underlying democratic principle is clear: patriotism cannot be reduced to unquestioning loyalty to a political party. A citizen who exposes corruption, condemns violence or campaigns for constitutional accountability is not automatically an enemy of the nation. Indeed, peaceful criticism can be an expression of profound commitment to the country’s future. Zimbabwe needs citizens who are free to ask difficult questions, journalists who can investigate wrongdoing, civil society organisations that can monitor public institutions, and a diaspora that can contribute ideas and resources without fear. A government confident in its legitimacy should welcome peaceful scrutiny rather than treat criticism as a threat to its survival.

The central tragedy of Zimbabwe is that the people who fought for political liberation should not have to fight another generation-long battle for the freedoms that independence was supposed to secure. Political independence without effective accountability can leave citizens feeling powerless. Elections without a safe environment for political participation cannot fully satisfy the promise of democracy. Natural resources without transparent management cannot guarantee national prosperity. Hospitals without adequate equipment cannot provide the security that the right to health demands. And a justice system that fails to resolve serious allegations of political violence cannot reassure citizens that the law protects them equally. These are not isolated questions. They are interconnected tests of whether the state is fulfilling its responsibilities to the people.

I would rather face a life sentence for standing by my convictions than live in constant fear of being tortured, abducted or killed for expressing my political views. This is not because imprisonment is something to celebrate, nor because I wish harm upon anyone. It is because a life without freedom, dignity and the ability to speak the truth is one in which fear has been allowed to overpower citizenship. No Zimbabwean should be forced to make such a choice. No parent should fear that a child will be attacked for holding a political opinion. No activist should have to consider disappearance or violence as a possible consequence of peaceful opposition. No journalist should be intimidated for reporting on matters of public interest. No patient should fear that entering a hospital is equivalent to receiving a death sentence. No family should be left without answers when a loved one dies in circumstances that raise legitimate questions. And no individual or political organisation should be permitted to place itself above the law.

I therefore call for independent investigations into reported cases of political violence, including Kelvin Bhonzo’s death; meaningful accountability for those responsible for abuses established through credible evidence; the protection of journalists, activists and peaceful protesters; transparent investigations into allegations arising from the Gold Mafia exposé; stronger judicial independence; and urgent, measurable investment in healthcare, emergency services and essential public infrastructure. Zimbabwe also needs transparent constitutional processes, credible democratic competition and public institutions that serve every citizen without discrimination. These demands are not an attack on Zimbabwe. They are a call for the country to fulfil the promises upon which its independence was built. Criticising a government's failures is not the same as hating one’s country. In many circumstances, it is precisely because people love their country that they refuse to remain silent while its institutions struggle and its citizens suffer.

The bloodshed during the liberation struggle must not be used to justify permanent political entitlement. The sacrifices of those who fought for independence should be honoured by protecting the freedoms for which they struggled, not by demanding that future generations accept fear and silence in their name. No political party is greater than the nation, no leader is greater than the Constitution, and no officeholder is entitled to treat public resources as personal property. Zimbabwe’s future must be determined by its people through peaceful, free and credible democratic processes. Its hospitals must preserve life, its courts must deliver justice, its resources must serve the public, and its citizens must be free to speak without fear.

The question that remains is this: when will Zimbabwe experience its second independence? Not independence from another nation, but freedom from fear, political intimidation, corruption, impunity and the denial of fundamental human rights. Independence means that a child can enter a hospital and expect treatment, a citizen can criticise the president without fear of retaliation, an activist can organise a peaceful demonstration without being attacked, and a family can demand justice without being ignored. It means that the wealth beneath Zimbabwean soil is reflected in the wellbeing of the people who live upon it, and that political leadership is a public responsibility rather than a permanent entitlement. Until Zimbabweans can enjoy these freedoms in practice, the promise of 1980 remains unfinished. Zimbabwe does not need another liberation struggle fought in blood; it needs a democratic renewal built on truth, accountability, justice and the protection of human life. The people must never again be forced to choose between their political convictions and their right to live. The struggle for Zimbabwe’s second independence must continue until freedom belongs to every Zimbabwean, not merely to those who hold power.

About the author: -
Samuel Jambaya is a Zimbabwean human rights activist based in the United Kingdom. He is a member of the UK Chapter of Restoration of Human Rights (ROHR) Zimbabwe and is also active with the Constitution Defenders Forum (CDF). He can be contacted via email at jomueljambaya@gmail.com.

 

Zimbabwe Deserves Truth, Not Manufactured Support: Questions Raised by the Al Jazeera Investigation

 By Munyaradzi Masaka

24^th October 2026

As Zimbabwe continues to grapple with severe economic and social hardship, matters of government accountability, public‑resource stewardship, and the nation’s international standing demand urgent public scrutiny.

A recent Al Jazeera investigation titled “Murder For Hire & The UK's Far Right” has raised concerning questions surrounding alleged efforts to manufacture political support in the United Kingdom — including a reported plan to stage a rally calling for the removal of sanctions against Zimbabwe.

According to the report, Jack Ross, an associate of Turning Point UK, was allegedly involved in organising what is described as a contrived political rally. These allegations prompt important considerations regarding political integrity, transparency, and the tactics used to shape international public opinion. Those named in the investigation have contested parts of its findings, and all claims require fair, evidence‑based assessment.

If British citizens were recruited or remunerated to create the appearance of genuine grassroots backing for the Zimbabwean government, Zimbabweans are entitled to know who authorised these arrangements, who funded them, and what objectives they were intended to serve.

Legitimate political support is earned through sound governance, respect for human rights, democratic accountability, and policies that improve citizens’ livelihoods — it should not be manufactured to persuade the international community that a government enjoys popular backing.

Zimbabweans both at home and overseas have good reason to question whether their country’s global standing is being strengthened through authentic diplomatic outreach, or through questionable political manoeuvring.

At a time when many citizens face mounting unemployment, poverty, inadequate public services, and rising living costs, any alleged use of public funds for political publicity merits close examination. Where public money may have been deployed, the government should clarify the source of those funds and the legal authority under which they were spent.

This is not an argument against sanctions relief or improved relations between Zimbabwe and the United Kingdom. On the contrary, constructive bilateral ties could deliver tangible benefits to ordinary people, businesses, and future generations in both nations. Yet such progress must be built on credible dialogue, economic reform, respect for human rights, and mutual trust.

Nor should it be assumed that every British citizen who expresses support for Zimbabwe has been paid or is acting in bad faith. Many people genuinely stand in solidarity with Zimbabweans and their right to prosperity, dignity, and self‑determination.

The core concern is whether any parties deliberately sought to misrepresent public sentiment for political gain.

In my view, accountability must apply irrespective of political allegiance or diplomatic standing. No government should be exempt from legitimate questions about how it spends public funds or how it represents its citizens abroad.

The Zimbabwean government should provide a transparent response to the allegations set out in the Al Jazeera report. Where supporting evidence exists, relevant bodies should conduct independent investigations to establish the full facts.

Zimbabwe’s international reputation should not rest on staged events or manufactured acclaim. It should be built on the well‑being of its people, the strength of its democratic institutions, and the confidence citizens place in their leadership.

Zimbabwe deserves genuine international respect — not an illusion of support. Its people deserve answers, transparency, and leadership that places national interest above political image.

About the author
Munyaradzi Masaka is a human rights activist based in the United Kingdom. He is in the Midlands Branch of the UK Chapter of Restoration of Human Rights (ROHR) Zimbabwe. He is also active with the Constitution Defenders Forum (CDF) and Zimbabwe Human Rights Organisation (ZHRO). He can be contacted by email at masakamunya8219@gmail.com

Zimbabwe under the So-Called Second Republic: A Human Rights Crisis and the Erosion of Democratic Freedoms.

By Tafadzwa Chivaura (Chairperson - ROHR Zimbabwe Midlands Branch - UK Chapter)

25th October 2026

It deeply troubles me that the future of Zimbabwe and its people continue to be held hostage by the prolonged rule of ZANU-PF. Under the so-called Second Republic, concerns about human rights violations, the erosion of democratic principles, and the concentration of political power have continued to raise serious questions about the country's commitment to constitutionalism, accountability, and the rule of law. The very people who should be enjoying the freedoms and protections guaranteed by the Constitution are increasingly concerned about their ability to exercise their rights without fear of intimidation, persecution, or political victimisation.

Vision 2030 was initially presented as a national development agenda promising economic transformation and prosperity. However, the introduction of the Constitution of Zimbabwe Amendment (No. 3) Bill, 2026, popularly known as CAB3, and its reported enactment into law in July 2026, raises profound concerns about the future of democracy and constitutional governance in Zimbabwe. When constitutional changes are perceived as serving the interests of those in power rather than the will of the people, the very foundation of democratic governance is placed at risk. Any attempt to extend presidential tenure or alter the constitutional framework in ways that weaken meaningful electoral accountability must be subjected to rigorous public scrutiny and constitutional safeguards.

The greatest danger is the possibility that citizens who oppose the extension of presidential terms or question government policies may be treated as enemies of the state. In a democratic society, dissent is not a crime, criticism is not treason, and demanding accountability is not an act of disloyalty. Every Zimbabwean has the fundamental right to freedom of expression, peaceful assembly, association, and political participation. When citizens fear intimidation, arbitrary arrest, harassment, or persecution for expressing their political views, these freedoms become meaningless in practice. A government that claims to represent its people must protect the rights of its critics, not seek to silence them.

What saddens me most is the apparent imbalance of power between ordinary Zimbabweans and the political elite. The rights, freedoms, and future of millions should never be determined by the narrow interests of a few individuals. Human rights are universal; they are not privileges to be granted or withdrawn at the discretion of those who hold political office. Every Zimbabwean, regardless of political affiliation, social status, or economic standing, deserves equal protection under the law, equal access to opportunities, and the freedom to participate in shaping the nation's future.

This leaves me with a fundamental question: What can the people of Zimbabwe do to defend their constitutional rights and challenge political decisions that they believe undermine democracy? The answer must begin with public awareness, peaceful civic engagement, constitutional accountability, independent institutions, and solidarity among citizens. Zimbabweans must be able to question government decisions, organise peacefully, demand transparency, and participate freely in national debates without fear of retaliation. Civil society organisations, independent journalists, legal practitioners, and democratic institutions all have an important role to play in safeguarding fundamental freedoms and ensuring that those in positions of authority remain accountable to the people.

Meanwhile, the country's economic circumstances continue to raise serious concerns. Many Zimbabweans struggle to find stable employment, access reliable public services, and secure a dignified standard of living. The limited opportunities available to ordinary citizens stand in stark contrast to claims that the Second Republic has transformed the country for the better. While some may point to particular development projects or economic achievements, such claims must be assessed against the lived experiences of the wider population. Development cannot be measured by political slogans alone; it must be reflected in jobs, functioning industries, affordable basic necessities, reliable public services, and improved living standards for ordinary families.

A nation cannot claim meaningful progress when its citizens are unable to exercise their rights freely, earn a decent livelihood, or hold their leaders accountable without fear. Economic hardship and restrictions on civil liberties can reinforce one another, leaving vulnerable communities with fewer opportunities to challenge decisions that affect their lives. The people of Zimbabwe deserve more than promises of prosperity under Vision 2030. They deserve tangible economic opportunities, respect for human dignity, and institutions that serve the public interest rather than narrow political or personal interests.

Equally troubling are concerns about constitutional changes and the extent to which the public has been afforded a genuine opportunity to participate in decisions affecting the country's democratic future. The Constitution is not the property of any political party, president, or group of officeholders. It is the supreme legal framework through which the rights of citizens are protected and the powers of government are limited. Any proposed amendment must comply with the applicable constitutional procedures, including referendum requirements where legally required. Constitutional legitimacy depends not merely on the formal passage of legislation but also on respect for the law, transparency, public participation, and the democratic principles underpinning the constitutional order.

The political environment also raises concerns about patronage, corruption, and the use of public resources. When access to opportunities appears to depend on political loyalty rather than merit, fairness, or equal treatment, public institutions risk losing the confidence of the people they are meant to serve. Government resources belong to the nation, not to individual officeholders or their political allies. Public funds must be managed transparently and accountably, with corruption investigated impartially and those responsible held to account through lawful processes. Zimbabweans should not have to demonstrate loyalty to political leaders to access opportunities, services, or the benefits of their country's resources.

At the heart of this debate is the right to vote. Voting is not merely an exercise conducted during election periods; it is a fundamental instrument through which citizens participate in public affairs, choose their representatives, and hold political leaders accountable. For this right to have genuine meaning, elections must take place within a framework that protects political freedoms, allows citizens to make informed choices, and ensures that opposition voices can participate without intimidation or discrimination. The people's mandate must never be treated as the personal property of those elected to serve them.

The future of Zimbabwe should not be determined by fear, political patronage, or constitutional arrangements that place the interests of those in power above the rights of citizens. It should be shaped by respect for human dignity, the rule of law, democratic accountability, and the equal participation of every Zimbabwean.

Ultimately, the question is not simply whether the Second Republic claims to have delivered development. The more important question is whether Zimbabweans can live freely, express themselves without fear, participate meaningfully in public affairs, access economic opportunities, and hold their leaders accountable under the law.

No political party is greater than the Constitution, no president is above the law, and no government has the right to treat the fundamental freedoms of its citizens as a political favour. Zimbabwe belongs to its people, and its future must be determined through lawful, inclusive, and democratic processes that respect their rights and aspirations. The struggle for a democratic Zimbabwe is, at its core, a struggle to protect human dignity, restore public accountability, and ensure that the freedoms promised by the Constitution are enjoyed by all, not merely proclaimed in words.

About the author
Tafadzwa Chivaura is a human rights activist based in the United Kingdom. He is the Chairperson of the Midlands Branch of the UK Chapter of Restoration of Human Rights (ROHR) Zimbabwe.  He can be contacted by email at tafadzwachivaura@yahoo.com OR at Tafadzwa.chivaura@rohr-zimbabwe.org

When the Church Aligns Itself with Oppressive Power

 By: Anonymous Elder

 8^th August 2026

When a church leader openly declares allegiance to an oppressive government, the consequences extend
far beyond the individual leader. The congregation and, ultimately, the wider nation can suffer when the Church abandons its prophetic responsibility and becomes aligned with the very structures that oppress people. 

The Church’s primary allegiance must be to Christ. Its calling is not to legitimise political power, but to proclaim truth, defend human dignity, pursue justice, show mercy and provide refuge to those who are vulnerable and oppressed.

When a church leader places political allegiance above Christ-centred leadership, the Church risks losing its prophetic voice. Instead of speaking truth to power, it may become an instrument through which oppressive and exploitative power is legitimised. Those who are suffering may then become afraid to speak, knowing that the institution from which they expected compassion and protection has aligned itself with those causing their suffering.

The Church must be a place where the wounded can find refuge, where the oppressed can find a voice, where truth can be spoken without fear, and where every person is treated with dignity. This does not mean that the Church must be politically neutral or that Christians cannot participate in government or support particular political positions. Rather, it means that no political authority should receive an allegiance that competes with allegiance to Christ.

When political power demands silence in the face of injustice, the Church must choose truth. When government becomes oppressive, the Church must remain a refuge for those who suffer. And when leaders become all too powerful, the Church must retain the courage to remind them that earthly authority is neither absolute nor eternal.

A Christ-centred Church does not ask first, “Which political side am I on?” It asks, “What does faithfulness to Christ require of me in the presence of power, injustice and human suffering?”

That is where the Church’s prophetic calling begins.

This is true of the Church in Zimbabwe as of the Church in the rest of the world.

About the author
Anonymous Elder is a human rights activist based in the United Kingdom. He/she has requested anonymity for now. Any inquiries regarding this article should be sent via email to humanright@rohr-zimbabwe.org

Zimbabwe’s Shrinking Democratic Space: Why I Oppose the Patriotic Act, CAA#3, Abductions and Corruption

By Samuel Jambaya

21^st July 2026

Zimbabwe stands at a critical moment in its history. Ideally, a people who fought hard and made huge sacrifices for freedom should never live in fear of speaking their minds. Yet political repression, abductions, arbitrary arrests, and repressive laws are steadily eroding the country’s democratic values.

Among the laws that I strongly oppose is the Criminal Law (Codification and Reform) Amendment Bill (commonly referred to as "The Patriotic Act”, which was signed into law by the Zimbabwean President on July 14, 2023. I believe it threatens freedom of expression, freedom of association, and the right of every Zimbabwean to participate in democratic debate without fear of punishment. This law discourages citizens, journalists, activists, and opposition members from exercising their constitutional rights and expressing differing political opinions.

I also hate the Constitution Amendment Act #3 (CAA#3), which was signed into law on 7 July 2026. It robs the citizens of their right to vote for the President. It promotes corruption in that a president can easily buy the few hundreds of MPs to get their vote and then preside over a country of more than six million citizens of voting age.

I also hate state-sponsored human rights violations including abductions, torture, murders and enforced disappearances.

Some of the prominent cases are that of Tonderai Ndira, who was abducted and later killed in 2008, Itai Dzamara, who disappeared in 2015 and remains missing, and Tawanda Muchehiwa, who was abducted in 2020 and later released after being tortured. These cases have become symbols for many Zimbabweans who believe justice and accountability remain incomplete.

When citizens live in fear of being abducted, arrested, tortured, killed or intimidated because of their political beliefs, democracy itself is weakened. A government should protect the rights of its people, not create an environment where fear replaces freedom.

Corruption is yet another blight wrought by Emmerson Mnangagwa, his cronies and ZANU-PF. These few people have milked the country to its knees; little wonder they are changing the constitution to lengthen their term of office so that they avoid prosecution whilst they work out how to establish a Mnangagwa dynasty.

We continue to question why allegations raised in the internationally publicised Gold Mafia investigation have not resulted in transparent accountability. The documentary unearthed extensive gold smuggling, money laundering and corruption involving the first family and individuals connected to powerful interests.

The “Gold Mafia” is an example of how Zimbabwe’s natural resources are enriching a privileged few while millions of ordinary citizens struggle with unemployment, poor healthcare, inadequate education, collapsing infrastructure and persistent poverty.

Zimbabwe is richly endowed with gold, diamonds, platinum and other valuable resources. These resources should improve hospitals, schools, roads, clean water supplies and employment opportunities. Instead, many citizens see little benefit while corruption allegations continue to dominate public discussion.

The negative consequences of restrictive laws, political intimidation and unmitigated corruption discourage investment, weaken democratic institutions, reduce public confidence in government, encourage skilled professionals to leave the country and limit citizens’ willingness to participate freely in national affairs.

Zimbabwe deserves better. It deserves leaders who respect the Constitution, uphold the rule of law, protect human rights, investigate corruption without fear or favour, and ensure that national wealth benefits every citizen rather than a privileged minority.

As a Zimbabwean, I believe that patriotism means defending justice, accountability, democracy and the rights of every citizen—not remaining silent in the face of injustice. A prosperous Zimbabwe can only be built on transparency, respect for human rights and equal justice under the law.

About the author: -
Samuel Jambaya is a Zimbabwean human rights activist based in the United Kingdom. He is a member of the UK Chapter of Restoration of Human Rights (ROHR) Zimbabwe, and is also active with the Constitution Defenders Forum (CDF). He can be contacted via email at jomueljambaya@gmail.com.

 

In the Face of CAA3, We Are Down but Not Out

By Genius Khatazile Mamwadhu

19^th July 2026

As a community of human rights activists representing the ordinary Zimbabwean citizen, we put up a strong and spirited fight against Constitution Amendment Bill # 3 (CAB 3), from the time it was first whispered in ZANU-PF circles to its enactment on 7 July 2026.

It was never going to be easy to prevail against the machinations of a dictator determined to establish a dynasty, shield himself from possible future prosecution for his role in the Gukurahundi genocide, and evade accountability for the many atrocities committed by ZANU-PF and state machinery at his behest over four decades—not to mention the desire to protect what he looted from Zimbabwe’s resources.

Emmerson Mnangagwa deliberately avoided a referendum on a matter of great national importance and has instead forced his way forward, using looted national resources to buy the support of Members of Parliament.

He has also bought off most social influencers and anyone he believed might stand in his way as he marches toward crowning himself the “King of Zimbabwe.”

He also deployed State machinery to crush dissent. The CIO ensured that attempts to mobilise against CAB 3 were suppressed, and leading voices were hounded into silence. Some were abducted and tortured, some were incarcerated, and others were driven into exile.

The police stood ready with baton sticks and tear gas, while army tanks were visibly positioned to send a clear warning: citizens should think twice before taking to the streets.

The memories of the killings of unarmed protesters in January and August 2018 remain fresh, and the sight of army tanks stationed in strategic positions across the country is deterrent enough.

We must therefore acknowledge that we lost this battle, and that is deeply painful.

However, we will continue to fight the Mnangagwa regime until we overturn CAA 3 and all the unjust, repressive laws the regime has enacted.

We are back to the drawing board.

We are down, but not out.

About the author: -
Genius Khatazile Mamwadhu is a Zimbabwean human rights activist based in the United Kingdom. He is a member of the UK Chapter of Restoration of Human Rights (ROHR) Zimbabwe, Zimbabwe Human Rights Organisation (ZHRO) and is also active with the Constitution Defenders Forum (CDF). He can be contacted via email at mamwadhukhatazile@gmail.com.

The Constitution Was Meant to Protect Zimbabweans—Not Those in Power

Why Constitution Amendment No. 3 Is a Threat to Democracy

By Rumbidzai Thelma Chidewu

13^th July 2026

A constitution is the supreme law of a nation. It exists to protect the rights of citizens, limit the abuse of power, and ensure that governments remain accountable to the people. When constitutional changes appear to serve the interests of those in power rather than the nation, every citizen has a duty to ask difficult questions.

The enactment of Constitution Amendment Act No. 3 has become one of the most controversial political developments in Zimbabwe's recent history. Many Zimbabweans believe the amendment weakens democratic governance and shifts the Constitution away from its intended purpose of protecting the people.

On 10 July 2026, Zimbabweans living in the United Kingdom and democracy activists gathered outside the Zimbabwe Embassy to peacefully protest the signing of the amendment into law. Their message was clear: the Constitution belongs to the people, not to any political party or individual.

Many citizens believe the amendment offers little hope for ordinary Zimbabweans who continue to face economic hardship, unemployment, failing public services, and rising poverty. Instead, critics argue that the changes strengthen political power while doing little to improve the daily lives of the people.

The process leading to the amendment has also raised serious concerns. Opposition parties, civic organisations, and democracy advocates have alleged that intimidation, political pressure, and inducements were used to secure support for the Bill. Allegations that some public officials and Members of Parliament received financial rewards or vehicles have been widely reported in political debate, although these claims remain contested and have not been conclusively established by the courts.

Equally worrying is the growing fear among many Zimbabweans of speaking openly about political issues. Reports of arrests, abductions, and the prosecution of government critics have created an atmosphere in which many people feel that expressing a different opinion comes with serious personal risk. Democracy cannot flourish where fear replaces freedom.

The protest at the Zimbabwe Embassy was not driven by hatred or division. It was an expression of love for Zimbabwe and a desire to see a nation governed by the rule of law, constitutionalism, and respect for the will of the people.

As democracy activists, we cannot remain silent when we believe the Constitution is being used to consolidate political power rather than protect the rights of citizens. Peaceful protest is not a crime. Speaking out against injustice is not an act of disloyalty. It is the responsibility of every citizen who believes in democracy.

Zimbabwe deserves leaders who place the interests of the people above political survival. The country's future should be determined by its citizens through free, fair, and democratic processes—not through constitutional changes that many believe undermine the spirit of the 2013 Constitution.

Our call remains firm and peaceful:
No to Constitutional Amendment No. 3.
No to extending political power through constitutional manipulation.
No to fear, intimidation, and the silencing of citizens.

Yes to democracy.
Yes to constitutionalism.

Yes to a Zimbabwe where every citizen can speak freely, participate without fear, and determine the future of their nation.

History will remember those who defended democracy when it was under threat. May we all have the courage to stand on the right side of history.

About the author
Rumbidzai Thelma Chidewu is a Zimbabwean human rights activist based in the United Kingdom. She is in the Midlands Branch of the UK Chapter of Restoration of Human Rights (ROHR) Zimbabwe.  She can be contacted by email at rumbidzaithelmazhanje@gmail.com 

Zimbabweans Deserve Dignity, Not Abandonment

by Chiedza Kambari

5^th July 2026

The ongoing situation involving Zimbabweans waiting for transport in South Africa is heartbreaking and unacceptable. Reports indicate that thousands of people have been stranded for days, sleeping outside in cold and rainy weather while waiting for buses that were promised but have arrived in insufficient numbers.

Among those stranded are pregnant women, children, elderly people, and individuals who are ill. Leaving vulnerable people exposed to harsh weather for such a long time is a humanitarian crisis that demands an urgent response.

It is deeply disappointing that those affected have been left to endure these conditions while waiting for assistance. Promises without timely action only increase the suffering of people who are already facing uncertainty and hardship.

Every government has a responsibility to protect the dignity and welfare of its people. Zimbabwean citizens deserve safe and organised transportation, proper shelter, access to healthcare where needed, and clear communication during times of crisis. No one should be left abandoned in the open for days.

As a Zimbabwean, I believe our leaders should focus on protecting citizens and addressing humanitarian emergencies rather than prioritising political celebrations such as Constitutional Amendment Bill No. 3 (CAB 3). Celebrating perceived political achievements while vulnerable Zimbabweans continue to suffer reflects misplaced priorities and a failure of compassionate leadership.

Human rights are not optional. Every Zimbabwean deserves to be treated with dignity, respect, and humanity. I call on all responsible authorities to act urgently, honour their commitments, and ensure that no Zimbabwean is left to suffer in such inhumane conditions again.

About the author
Chiedza Kambari is a human rights activist based in the United Kingdom. She is the Deputy Organising Secretary of the Midlands Branch of the UK Chapter of Restoration of Human Rights (ROHR) Zimbabwe.  She can be contacted by email at kambarichiedza@gmail.com OR at Chiedza.kambari@rohr-zimbabwe.org

Zimbabwe’s Main Challenges-What Citizens Are Facing

14th June 2026 

By Chiedza Kambari

Zimbabwe continues to face a number of challenges that affect the daily lives of its citizens. Many people are struggling with the high cost of living, unemployment, inadequate public services, and economic hardship.

Concerns have also been raised about the condition of public infrastructure, including roads, water systems, and drainage networks. Recent incidents involving unsafe sewage drains have highlighted the need for greater attention to public safety and maintenance of essential services.

Many citizens and civil society groups have expressed concerns about proposed laws and policies, including Constitution of Zimbabwe Amendment (No. 3) Bill, arguing that legislation should protect democratic rights and freedoms while promoting national development. 

Healthcare services, education, and social welfare systems also face significant pressures, making it difficult for many families to access the support they need. As a result, some Zimbabweans have sought opportunities abroad in search of better living conditions and economic stability.

Addressing these challenges requires accountable leadership, transparency, investment in public services, and policies that improve the welfare of all citizens. Zimbabweans deserve a future where they can live in safety, dignity, and prosperity.

About the author
Chiedza Kambari is a human rights activist based in the United Kingdom. She is the Deputy Organising Secretary of the Midlands Branch of the UK Chapter of Restoration of Human Rights (ROHR) Zimbabwe.  She can be contacted by email at kambarichiedza@gmail.com OR at Chiedza.kambari@rohr-zimbabwe.org