The
reaction
points
to
deeper
concerns
about
accountability
and
whether
chiefs
still
reflect
the
voices
of
the
people
they
are
meant
to
serve.
On
Thursday
evening,
chiefs
from
Matabeleland
North
and
South,
under
the
leadership
of
the
National
Council
of
Chiefs,
announced
their
support
for
the
Bill
during
a
brief
press
conference
in
Bulawayo.
The
endorsement
was
confirmed
by
president
of
National
Council
of
Chiefs,
Chief
Mtshane
Khumalo,
who
said
the
traditional
leaders
had
reached
a
unanimous
position.
“We
unanimously
endorse
and
support
the
Constitutional
Amendment
Number
3
Bill.
We
will
be
submitting
two
or
three
issues
relating
to
traditional
leaders’
enhancement,”
said
Chief
Mtshane,
standing
alongside
Deputy
President
of
the
National
Chiefs
Council,
Chief
Fortune
Charumbira.
He
acknowledged
senior
traditional
leaders
including
Senator
Chief
Siansali,
Chief
Sitaudze,
Chief
Mathuphula,
Chief
Nyangazonke,
Chief
Masendu
and
all
chiefs
from
the
two
Matabeleland
provinces.
The
press
conference
lasted
less
than
two
minutes
and
left
more
questions
than
answers
after
journalists
were
barred
from
asking
follow‑up
questions.
“We
are
done,
no
questions,”
Chief
Mtshane
told
journalists.
“Go
and
publish,
we
have
given
you
news,”
Chief
Charumbira
added,
dismissing
attempts
to
seek
clarification.
When
pressed
further,
Chief
Mtshane
responded:
“No,
no,
we
have
no
answers,”
while
Chief
Charumbira
insisted:
“This
is
a
constitutional
amendment,
there
are
no
questions.
We
are
just
endorsing.”
The
abrupt
end
to
the
briefing
has
since
fuelled
criticism,
with
many
questioning
both
the
transparency
of
the
process
and
whether
chiefs
genuinely
consulted
the
communities
they
represent.
While
the
endorsement
itself
did
not
come
as
a
surprise,
following earlier
reports
by
CITE that
there
was
pressure
on
chiefs
to
align
with
the
Bill,
the
manner
in
which
it
was
delivered
has
triggered
widespread
frustration.
The
controversy
is
closely
tied
to
one
of
the
most
contentious
provisions
of
the
Bill:
the
proposed
repeal
of
Section
281(2)
of
the
Constitution.
Under
the
current
constitutional
framework,
traditional
leaders
are
required
to
remain
politically
neutral.
Chiefs
are
prohibited
from
becoming
members
of
political
parties,
acting
in
a
partisan
manner,
or
advancing
political
interests.
Clause
20
of
the
proposed
amendment
seeks
to
remove
these
restrictions,
effectively
allowing
chiefs,
headmen
and
village
heads
to
openly
participate
in
partisan
politics.
Their
conduct
would
instead
be
regulated
through
an
Act
of
Parliament.
Some
community
members
accused
traditional
leaders
of
abandoning
their
representative
role.
“They
were
bought
by
cars
a
long
time
ago,
so
there’s
nothing
to
expect
from
all
those
people
who
received
tokens,”
said
one
resident.
Others
questioned
whether
dissenting
voices
within
the
institution
of
traditional
leadership
were
present
at
the
meeting.
“Were
there
any
progressive
chiefs
in
that
meeting?”
asked
another.
A
recurring
concern
is
the
apparent
lack
of
grassroots
consultation.
“Self-representation
does
not
reflect
the
mind
and
interests
of
your
subjects.
Inkosi
yinkosi
ngabantu,”
said
one
commentator.
“You
hold
highly
regarded
cultural
positions
within
our
communities
and
your
support
for
such
documents
should
be
informed
by
consultations
with
your
people.”
Others
interpreted
the
push
for
endorsements
as
a
sign
of
deeper
problems.
“The
desperation
to
get
everyone
to
rally
behind
and
endorse
this
‘thing’
is
a
sign
that
it’s
not
good.
There
is
no
good
thing
that
requires
such
an
aggressive
campaign,”
said
another
resident.
Some
expressed
broader
disillusionment
with
traditional
leadership.
“We
no
longer
have
the
leadership
in
Matabeleland,”
one
said.
However,
not
all
reactions
were
critical.
Writing
on
his
Facebook,
Anglistone
Sibanda
defended
the
chiefs’
position,
arguing
that
traditional
leadership
has
historically
been
aligned
with
political
authority.
“Let
us
face
reality,
we
must
never
expect
our
traditional
leaders
to
be
political
or
civic
activists
who
rebel
against
the
establishment.
Traditionally,
chiefs
were
appointed
based
on
loyalty.
Expecting
them
to
oppose
the
system
may
not
be
realistic,”
he
said.
Weighing
in
on
the
latest
development,
political
analyst,
Patrick
Ndlovu,
said
the
endorsement
raises
fundamental
questions
about
constitutional
obligations
and
community
trust.
“The
current
Constitution
obliges
traditional
leaders
to
remain
politically
neutral.
Endorsing
the
Bill
in
its
current
form
compromises
their
duty
to
act
impartially
and
represent
all
members
of
their
communities.
Since
chiefs
are
custodians
of
community
cohesion,
how
will
they
maintain
trust
in
politically
diverse
communities?”
he
asked.
Ndlovu
also
warned
of
potential
long‑term
consequences.
“If
the
amendment
leads
to
increased
political
polarisation
in
rural
areas,
will
chiefs
take
responsibility
for
those
outcomes?”
Ngqabutho
Nicholas
Mabhena,
General
Secretary
of
the
Zimbabwe
Communist
Party
(ZCP),
said
the
developments
reflect
a
disconnect
between
leadership
decisions
and
community
realities.
“It
is
clear
whose
interests
the
chiefs
represent
in
this
process.
At
a
time
when
communities
are
facing
economic
pressures
such
as
rising
costs
of
living
and
strain
on
social
services,
how
do
these
constitutional
changes
improve
the
lives
of
ordinary
people?”
Mabhena
questioned
the
prioritisation
of
constitutional
reforms
over
pressing
socio‑economic
challenges.
“How
do
the
chiefs
justify
supporting
such
changes
when
many
rural
communities
are
struggling
with
access
to
healthcare,
transport
and
basic
services?”
The Constitutional
Amendment
No.
3
Bill,
gazetted
in
February
2026,
continues
to
generate
intense
debate
across
Zimbabwe.
The
Bill
proposes
extending
presidential
and
parliamentary
terms
from
five
to
seven
years
and
altering
the
method
of
electing
the
President,
changes
that
could
allow
Emmerson
Mnangagwa
to
remain
in
office
beyond
2028.
Kathryn
