STAFF REPORTER
Attorney General Virginia Mabiza has firmly rejected calls for a national referendum on Constitutional Amendment Bill No. 3 of 2026, saying the demand has no legal foundation and amounts to a misreading of the Constitution’s clear and deliberate amendment procedures.
Her intervention effectively strengthens the government’s legal position ahead of next week’s parliamentary debate, while also placing a major question mark over arguments advanced by constitutional lawyer Professor Lovemore Madhuku and other critics who have insisted that CAB3 must go to a referendum.
According to the Attorney General’s Office, the Constitution is explicit on when a referendum is required, and CAB3 does not fall within any of those categories—making parliamentary approval, not a plebiscite, the only lawful route.
In a strongly worded statement that leaves little room for ambiguity, Mabiza anchored her position on Section 328(6), saying the provision is both deliberate and precise in limiting referendums to only narrowly defined circumstances.
“I said it before and I want to insist that Section 328(6) is deliberate and precise in that it reserves the ultimate democratic veto — the national referendum — for only three narrowly defined categories of amendment: any Bill that touches Chapter 4 (the Declaration of Rights), Chapter 16 (Agricultural Land), or section 328 itself. In every other case, once a Constitution Bill secures the required two-thirds majority in both Houses of Parliament, it must be forwarded to the President for assent.
“This design by the legislature is deliberately framed with constitutional wisdom: to shield the most fundamental rights and land provisions from alteration without a referendum, The Constitution (Amendment No. 3) Bill, 2026, touches none of the protected chapters or sections. Therefore,no referendum is triggered or permitted.
“I should emphasise that the constitutional basis for proceeding without a referendum is neither an option nor a loophole — 328(6)is very clear on this aspect .
Any insistence on a referendum given the current scenario is devoid of any meaningful legal basis and logic.
It is an unconstitutional demand.”
The Attorney General is the only bureaucrat who belongs to the three arms of the state as she sits in cabinet, Parliament and is also a Commissioner in the Judiciary
Mabiza’s remarks decisively reinforce the government’s interpretation that CAB3 is fully compliant with the constitutional amendment framework and can lawfully proceed once it secures the requisite two-thirds majority in both the National Assembly and Senate, after which it will be transmitted to the President for assent.
The Attorney General further underscored that the framers of the Constitution intentionally crafted Section 328 to strike a balance between democratic participation and parliamentary authority, limiting referendums only to matters involving fundamental rights, land, and the amendment clause itself.
Legal analysts say her position significantly narrows the space for the referendum argument, which has been pushed most prominently by Professor Madhuku, and shifts the debate firmly into Parliament where the constitutional thresholds—not public plebiscite demands—will determine the Bill’s fate.
With CAB3 now heading for debate, the legal and political spotlight is firmly on Parliament, where the government is expected to rely on the Attorney General’s interpretation as its central constitutional anchor.