The Opinion of 10000 Men is of No Value if None of Them knows Anything about the Subject

The Roman Emperor Marcus Aurelius once observed: "The opinion of 10000 men is of no value if none of them knows anything about the subject."

As Zimbabwe debates Constitutional Amendment Bill No. 3, his words are worth holding close. The discourse has become a battlefield. On one side, voices declare the Bill an assault on democracy itself. On the other, voices dismiss all opposition as political sabotage. Both sides trade half-truths. Both sides mistake volume for validity. Both sides treat the Constitution as a weapon rather than what it truly is: a framework for how we govern ourselves including how we change that framework.

I write not as an opposition activist nor as a ruling party apologist. I write as a former accountant trained in precision, a River Captain who respects currents deeper than surface noise, a law student learning constitutional method, and a bonafide citizen who believes that democracy demands more of us than choosing sides. It demands understanding.

What the previous amendments actually teach Us!

A common refrain in this debate is: "We've amended the Constitution twice before without challenges. Why the noise now?"

This question deserves an honest answer. Amendment No. 1 (2017) removed public interviews for senior judicial appointments. At public hearings in Harare, 100 percent of speakers rejected it. Civil society filed formal objections. Opposition MPs challenged every clause. Two MPs filed a Constitutional Court challenge alleging procedural violations. The Court ruled in 2020 not dismissing the challenge, but ordering the Senate to revote . The amendment stands today.

Amendment No. 2 (2021) eliminated public interviews for judicial promotions, allowed judges to serve beyond 70 with presidential approval, scrapped the running mate clause. Thousands participated in public hearings against it. Multiple Constitutional Court cases were filed. Veritas, the Law Society, and individual lawyers announced intention to challenge validity . The amendment stands today.

What do these examples demonstrate? Not that amendments pass without resistance. They demonstrate that Zimbabwe's constitutional amendment process works imperfectly, contestedly, but functionally. Public participation happens. Courts are engaged. Remedies are granted where procedures are flawed. And ultimately, when the process is followed, amendments stand.

The question Amendment No. 3 raises is not whether the Constitution can be changed. It clearly can and has been. The question is whether the process being followed for this amendment respects the Constitution's own rules for how it may be changed?

What makes this Amendment different and Not different?!

Let me state plainly what is often obscured: Amendment No. 3 targets Section 328(7) , the anti-incumbency clause that prevents sitting office-holders from benefiting from term extensions. This is true. Previous amendments left this provision untouched. But here is what must also be stated plainly: Section 328 can be amended. The Constitution itself says so. Section 328(9) explicitly provides that "this section may be amended" by following the procedures set out in subsections (3), (4), (5), and (6) treating Section 328 as if it were contained in Chapter 4 . The drafters anticipated that even the amendment clause might one day need revision. Nothing in the Constitution is frozen forever. The question, therefore, is not whether Section 328(7) can be changed. It can. The question is how?

The Method Question: Amendment vs. Override

A distinction must be made, but it must be made carefully. The Bill introduces language that says "notwithstanding section 328(7)" . Critics argue this is not amending the provision but overriding it a drafting trick to bypass constitutional safeguards. But is that necessarily true? Consider: every constitutional amendment, by definition, overrides what came before. When Parliament amended Section 91 in 2013 to change the age of presidential candidates, it did not say "notwithstanding the old age limit" but the effect was identical. The old provision ceased to apply.

The real question is whether the process being followed matches what Section 328 requires. And here, the debate becomes more nuanced. If the Bill merely amends Section 95 (presidential term length) and Section 143 (parliamentary term length), then under Section 328(6), no referendum is automatically required because those sections are not in Chapter 4 or Chapter 16 . A two-thirds parliamentary majority suffices.

If the Bill seeks to amend Section 328(7) itself, then under Section 328(9), the Chapter 4 procedure applies including referendum under Section 328(6) . If the Bill does neither but simply declares "notwithstanding section 328(7)" , then a genuine constitutional question arises: does this constitute an amendment to Section 328(7) in substance, or an evasion of the amendment procedure? This is not a question opposition or ruling party can answer by shouting. It is a question for the Constitutional Court which is exactly why Sibanda and others have filed their applications.

What has happened so far? And what has Not?

Let us be precise about the current state of play. The 90-day public consultation period is underway. Parliament is holding public hearings across the provinces. Citizens are making submissions. This is what Section 328(3) requires . The Bill has not yet been passed. It remains in draft form. Parliament will debate it after the 90 days expire. Votes will be cast. The two-thirds majority will be tested.

No referendum has been held because none is required until after Parliament passes the Bill, if at all. Under Section 328(6), a referendum is triggered only when a Bill seeks to amend Chapter 4 or Chapter 16. If the Bill is ultimately found to amend Section 328 itself, then Section 328(9) would require the Chapter 4 procedure which includes referendum. But that determination has not yet been made. The Constitutional Court has not ruled. Applications have been filed. The Court will consider whether clauses 4(b) and 9(b) are constitutionally competent. Until it rules, no one can say with certainty whether the Bill as drafted passes constitutional muster.

What does all this mean? It means the process is not complete. Claims that "Parliament is evading the Constitution" are premature. The process is unfolding. The safeguards public participation, parliamentary debate, judicial review are all still in play.

The half-truths on both Sides

Because the process is incomplete, those who speak in absolutes are trading in half-truths. Government supporters say: "No referendum is required. Period."

The half-truth: Under a plain reading of Section 328(6), if the Bill only amends Sections 95 and 143, no referendum is required. But if the Bill is found to amend Section 328(7) in substance, Section 328(9) may trigger the referendum requirement. The certainty being expressed is not yet justified.

Opposition supporters say: "This is an unconstitutional power grab. Period."

The half-truth: If Parliament follows the constitutional process public hearings, two-thirds vote, referendum where required and the Constitutional Court upholds the result, then the amendment would be constitutional by definition. The Constitution permits its own evolution. Calling it a "power grab" before the process has concluded substitutes politics for constitutional analysis.

The legal profession says: "Only lawyers can interpret the Constitution."

The half-truth: Any citizen who reads can understand. But understanding requires reading the Bill, Section 328, the Kika judgment. Common sense is valuable, but common sense unaided by legal method can lead us astray. The Constitution is not a mystery, but it is a structure. Structures require study.

What genuine understanding Requires?

Marcus Aurelius valued opinion grounded in knowledge. For Amendment No. 3, knowledge requires:

Firstly, read the Bill. Not summaries. Not political commentary. The actual text. Know what clauses 4(b) and 9(b) actually say and what they do not yet say because the process is ongoing.

Secondly, read Section 328. The entire section, not just subsection (7). Understand how subsections (3)-(9) interrelate. Grasp that Section 328 itself can be amended and that the drafters provided the procedure for doing so.

Thirdly, read the precedents. Kika. Mupungu. Understand that courts have enforced Section 328(7) vigorously and that they remain seized of these questions.

Fourthly, distinguish what has happened from what may happen. The Bill has not passed. The Court has not ruled. The process is alive. Speaking as if outcomes are predetermined is not analysis. It is uncalculated prophecy and such prophecy is the prophecy of doin which has no place in constitutional discourse.

The questions worth Asking!

Instead of trading certainties, we should demand answers to questions that remain genuinely open:

1. Does the Bill amend Section 328(7) in substance, or does it merely amend Sections 95 and 143? This is the central interpretive question. The Constitutional Court will answer it. Until then, certainty is misplaced.

2. If the Bill is found to amend Section 328(7), will the government submit to a referendum as Section 328(9) contemplates? This is a political question, not a legal one. The answer will reveal whether the government respects constitutional process or merely tolerates it when convenient.

3. What prevents this precedent from being applied to other constitutional safeguards? If "notwithstanding section 328(7)" is upheld, what prevents future Parliaments from using "notwithstanding" to override any provision? The Court's reasoning will matter as much as its ruling.

4. If the majority genuinely supports the President's continued tenure, why would a referendum not be the most legitimate path forward? This is not a legal question but a democratic one. A popular vote would resolve the debate conclusively. The reluctance to embrace it is worth examining.

A citizen's duty not a Faction's Weapon!

I am not an opposition activist. I am a former accountant who learnt that numbers, like laws, must add up. I am a River Captain who learnt that currents beneath the surface matter more than waves above. I am a law student learning that constitutionalism is not about feelings it is about facts, precedents, and the disciplined application of principle. I am a bonafide citizen who believes that democracy dies not when constitutions are amended, but when citizens stop demanding to understand.

Marcus Aurelius was right. The opinion of ten thousand people who have not read the Bill, have not read Section 328, and have not studied the precedents is of little value no matter how passionately expressed. But the opinion of citizens who have done the reading, who understand that the Constitution permits its own evolution, who can distinguish between legitimate amendment and procedural evasion, and who ask the hard questions without assuming bad faith that opinion has value. That opinion is democracy's foundation.

conclusion

Amendment No. 3 may pass. The Constitutional Court may uphold it. It may strike down clauses 4(b) and 9(b). It may craft a remedy somewhere in between. What is certain is this: the process is not complete, and the outcome is not predetermined.The Constitution is not sacred. It is a human document, written by human hands, subject to human amendment. It can be changed. It has been changed. It will be changed again. The only question worth asking is the only question that separates constitutional governance from raw politics and whether it is changed according to its own rules.That question remains open. And until the Constitutional Court closes it, those who speak in absolutes are not engaging in constitutional discourse. They are adding to the noise and manipulating the general public to feed on their unsubstantiated fears.

Let us therefore, read before we opine. Let us understand before we argue. Let us acknowledge what we do not yet know. And let us demand of ourselves the intellectual discipline that constitutional democracy requires. not as members of any faction, but as citizens of a republic that belongs to us all which we require it to peaceful and progressive. Laws can be changed no matter how much hypocrisy or conspiracies surrounds it.