It can never be a debate, Mr. Ziyambi, when 93 percent of MPs are coached to support CAB3

Tendai Ruben Mbofana

When Justice Minister Ziyambi Ziyambi proudly declared Constitutional Amendment (No. 3) Bill, or CAB3, to be “one of the most debated” bills in Zimbabwe’s parliamentary history, he was conflating sheer volume with actual substance. 

If you value my social justice advocacy and writing, please consider a financial contribution to keep it going. Contact me on WhatsApp: +263 715 667 700 or Email: mbofana.tendairuben73@gmail.com

It is a classic sleight of hand. 

By celebrating the fact that 55 senators stood up to speak compared to the usual ten during previous constitutional debates, the minister attempted to paint a picture of a robust, deeply deliberative democracy at work. 

But a closer look at the numbers exposes this performance for what it truly was: a highly choreographed, one-sided echo chamber, not a genuine contestation of ideas.

It can never be called a debate when approximately 93.2 percent of the senators who spoke merely regurgitated a script likely handed down to them in advance. 

Out of the 59 senators who took the floor, 55 spoke in absolute lockstep harmony, while a lonely four ventured to disagree. 

Similarly, in the National Assembly, 216 legislators voted in favor of the bill while 42 voted against it. 

This means that among those who cast a ballot, an overwhelming 83.72 percent backed the legislation, leaving a mere 16.28 percent opposing it.

This is not a parliament engaged in critical analysis; it is a choir singing from the same hymn sheet. 

A genuine debate requires a real friction of perspectives, where competing viewpoints challenge one another on the merits of policy. 

When over 93 percent of speakers take the exact same stance, the discussion collapses into a lopsided monologue that completely lacks meaningful opposition.

What the nation witnessed in both houses of parliament was a stage-managed event designed to create an illusion of consensus. 

A great deal of legislative time and taxpayer money could have been saved if a single MP had stood up, delivered the official rationale, and sat down. 

Instead, the public was subjected to days of parliamentarians repeating the same tired, recycled talking points. 

We heard endlessly about the president doing “outstanding work” and needing more time to complete his projects, the supposedly disruptive and expensive nature of regular elections, and the grand claim that a seven-year electoral cycle breeds national stability. 

Hearing the exact same paragraph spoken by dozens of different voices does not make a bill heavily debated; it just makes it heavily rehearsed.

The truth is that the minor amendments and alternate clauses were nothing more than cosmetic distractions. 

The inclusion of controversial proposals—like scrapping the Zimbabwe Gender Commission or allowing traditional leaders to dive into active politics—served as convenient smokescreens. 

They offered a textbook play in political posturing: include expendable clauses, sacrifice them later, and claim you are “listening to the people,” all while protecting the real prize. 

The core objective of CAB3 has always been fulfilling ZANU-PF’s so-called “Resolution No. 1” to extend the presidential term limit. 

If there was a shred of genuine, robust debate to be found, we would have seen legislators, particularly from the ruling party, stepping up to defend constitutionalism and argue against tearing up term bounds. 

Expectedly, none did. 

To call this predictable, manufactured unanimity the “most debated” bill in modern history is an insult to the very concept of democratic debate.

Democratic governance is measured by the depth of its institutional integrity, not by the decibel level of a stage-managed chorus. 

By bragging about the sheer number of voices that rose to echo a single, pre-determined script, Minister Ziyambi is not celebrating a triumph of parliamentary democracy; he is inadvertently exposing its hollow core. 

It is a damning indictment of our legislative system when hundreds of elected representatives choose to act as mere megaphones for the executive, rather than as independent custodians of the people’s will.

Ultimately, no amount of state media spin can transform a heavily rehearsed monologue into a historic national debate. 

What took place in the chambers of parliament was not a rigorous cross-examination of a constitutional amendment, but a performance of absolute compliance. 

If CAB3 goes down in history, it will not be remembered as a shining example of robust legislative deliberation. 

Instead, it will be marked as a tragic moment when the supreme law of the land was rewritten to suit narrow political ambitions. 

A compliant parliament simply executed the script, willingly trading its constitutional duty for choreographed applause.

• Tendai Ruben Mbofana is a social justice advocate and writer. To directly receive his articles please join his WhatsApp Channel on: https://whatsapp.com/channel/0029VaqprWCIyPtRnKpkHe08