Public participation is a critical element of democratic law-making. It is therefore not surprising that the ongoing public hearings on the Constitutional Amendment Bill No. 3 have generated intense debate across Zimbabwe. Some critics have argued that the number of venues and the four-day timeframe for hearings limit public participation, with others going as far as suggesting that the process is being manipulated.
However, a closer look at Parliament’s past public consultation processes tells a very different story.
Historically, parliamentary public hearings in Zimbabwe have followed a fairly consistent format in terms of duration and team deployment. For example, the consultations for the Constitution of Zimbabwe Amendment (No. 2) Bill (H.B. 23, 2019) were conducted from 14 to 19 June 2020. Similarly, public hearings for the Marriages Bill (H.B. 7, 2019) were held from 26 to 30 August 2019, within a four-day timeframe.
Other important pieces of legislation were consulted on using even fewer teams. The National Peace and Reconciliation Commission Bill (H.B. 2, 2017), for instance, had only two consultation teams conducting the hearings.
When these examples are considered, it becomes clear that the four-day structure currently being used is not unusual. It is consistent with the established parliamentary practice for public consultations.
Moreover, when comparing the number of teams deployed for different legislative processes, Parliament has gradually increased its outreach capacity over time. The Constitutional Amendment Bill No. 1 of 2017 involved only two teams conducting hearings. The Constitutional Amendment No. 2 Bill (H.B. 23, 2019) was handled by four teams, complemented by three virtual sessions due to the restrictions brought about by the COVID-19 pandemic. The Marriages Bill (H.B. 7, 2019) had seven teams conducting public consultations.
By comparison, the consultations for the Constitutional Amendment Bill No. 3 are being conducted by eleven teams. This represents the largest number of consultation teams deployed for such hearings and demonstrates an effort by Parliament to expand rather than restrict public engagement.
It is also important to understand that each consultation team requires a significant amount of logistical and human support. Parliamentary public hearings are not simply meetings held in different locations; they are formal processes that must be properly documented and managed.
Each team must be led by Members of Parliament from the National Assembly, while Senators may serve as members of the teams. Beyond the legislators themselves, every team requires a committee clerk, researchers, public relations officers, Hansard reporters responsible for recording the proceedings, and security personnel. These teams must also be supported administratively to ensure that every submission made by citizens is accurately captured.
Given these staffing requirements, Parliament must work within the limits of the human capital available to it. The number of teams that can be deployed at any given time is therefore influenced by the availability of trained personnel capable of supporting these consultations.
Another important point often overlooked in the current debate is that Parliament has provided multiple avenues for public participation. At every consultation venue, there are dedicated desks where citizens can submit written contributions. This allows individuals who may not be able to speak during the hearings or who wish to provide more detailed input to still have their views recorded as part of the legislative process.
Constructive criticism of public institutions is an essential part of democratic governance. However, it is equally important that such criticism reflects the facts. When examined in context, the current consultations for Constitutional Amendment Bill No. 3 show that Parliament has actually increased the number of teams compared to previous processes and maintained the same timeframe that has been used in past public hearings.
While there is always room to further strengthen citizen engagement, it is only fair to acknowledge the efforts being made within the institutional and logistical constraints that Parliament operates under. Public participation must remain a shared responsibility one that combines institutional commitment with informed and balanced public discourse.
Flipcash is Your Trusted PayPal & Crypto Exchange Partner in Zimbabwe — WhatsApp +263 77 163 9263
The post Public Hearings on Constitutional Amendment Bill No. 3: Putting the Debate Into Perspective appeared first on iHarare News.
