THE Zimbabwe Human Rights Commission (ZHRC) this week opposed a proposal in the Constitutional Amendment No. 3 Bill that would allow traditional leaders to openly participate in partisan politics.
It said this would erode key constitutional safeguards and embolden other public officials to demand similar rights.
Section 281(2) of the constitution bars chiefs and other traditional leaders from belonging to political parties or acting in a partisan manner.
Presenting its analysis of the Bill, the Commission said scrapping the provision raises “important constitutional and governance questions”.
It warned that the risks far outweigh any perceived gains.
“Traditional leaders hold authority rooted in custom and community respect, and their involvement in partisan politics risks compromising neutrality and social cohesion,” ZHRC chairperson Jessie Majome said.
The commission also cautioned that shifting oversight of chiefs’ conduct to an Act of Parliament would dilute constitutional protections and leave room for manipulation.
“Transferring regulation to an Act of Parliament also risks weakening constitutional safeguards, as parliamentary majorities could craft codes of conduct that favour political expediency rather than impartiality,” Majome said.
- Cars up for grabs in batteries competition
- Cars up for grabs in batteries competition
- ART mulls fresh regional excursion
- ART mulls fresh regional excursion
Keep Reading
“While repealing Section 281(2) restores the political rights of traditional leaders and aligns with constitutional guarantees of participation, it simultaneously threatens the impartiality and unifying role that chiefs are meant to play in society. The reform risks politicising traditional authority, undermining community trust, and eroding democratic fairness.”
ZHRC cautioned that amending the constitution could trigger a domino effect, with other categories of public officials — currently bound by similar neutrality provisions — seeking the same latitude.
“If the constitution is amended to allow traditional leaders to be in partisan politics, the next thing is predictable,” Majome said.
“In the constitution, it’s not only traditional leaders who are prohibited from being members of the political party, participating in parties and politics, acting in a partisan manner, or furthering the interests of the political party.”
She added: "There is a whole list of public officials that have similar provisions. Some of them are civil servants, soldiers, police officers, some of them are judges, others are people such as commissioners who are not allowed to be members of political parties.
“We will get members of the defence forces, police officers, civil servants and commissioners also wanting the same.”
The commission warned this could lead to the “unravelling” of a constitutional order that requires public officials to act independently and serve all citizens, regardless of political affiliation.
Drawing on past experience, ZHRC said the politicisation of traditional leaders had previously resulted in discrimination and exclusion within communities, including the denial of food aid to those perceived to support opposition parties.
“It becomes very twisted and very confusing,” Majome said.
“It may also just begin the unravelling of a whole constitutional order where people who serve the public must be independent, neutral and serve everyone, and this is an issue that needs to be thought about, because if the others go to court it should be in their favour.”
“So, can you imagine everyone running around doing party political activities? How will they serve people from different political parties, including the opposition? The wisdom of the constitution is to guide those rights. Our recommendation is that such a proposal is ill-advised.”
