正在加载视频...

视频加载失败

加载此视频时出现问题。这可能是由于临时网络问题，或视频可能不可用。

Constitutional Amendment Bill No. 3 must be withdrawn in its entirety. Any future attempt to amend the Constitution within the same confines, must strictly adhere to its own safeguards, through genuine, inclusive public hearings and a binding national referendum. We are escalating this fight with clarity and resolve to... show more

Constitution Defenders Forum

4,969 subscribers

12,817 次观看 • 3 个月前 •via X (Twitter)

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

0 条评论

暂无评论

原始帖子的评论将显示在这里

相关视频

Zimbabweans in Chiredzi are standing tall against all odds and are saying NO TO 2030. These public hearings are not enough for the millions of us to air our opinions against CAB3! CAB3 is the single most contemporary existential threat to the present and future of Zimbabwe and must be resisted by any means constitutionally necessary. This is exactly is why we must resist Agenda 2030 and are DEMANDING A REFERENDUM for the proposed constitutional amendments aimed to extend the term of office for elected officials! Join Constitution Defenders Forum via to defend the constitution #NoToCAB3 #NoTo2030 #PeoplePower #ReferendumOrNothing

Zimbabweans in Chiredzi are standing tall against all odds and are saying NO TO 2030. These public hearings are not enough for the millions of us to air our opinions against CAB3! CAB3 is the single most contemporary existential threat to the present and future of Zimbabwe and must be resisted by any means constitutionally necessary. This is exactly is why we must resist Agenda 2030 and are DEMANDING A REFERENDUM for the proposed constitutional amendments aimed to extend the term of office for elected officials! Join Constitution Defenders Forum via to defend the constitution #NoToCAB3 #NoTo2030 #PeoplePower #ReferendumOrNothing

Makomborero Haruzivishe

17,078 次观看 • 4 个月前

As Zimbabwe approaches a critical stage in the consideration of Constitutional Amendment Bill No. 3, the Convener of the Constitution Defenders Forum, TENDAI BITI, presents a detailed analysis of the Bill, its constitutional implications, and the dangers it poses to democratic governance, constitutionalism, and the sovereignty of the people. At this crucial juncture, as Parliament prepares to deliberate on this far-reaching constitutional amendment, we encourage all citizens to engage with the issues, understand what is at stake, and participate in the defence of the Constitution. Watch the full video here: #RejectAmendmentNo3 #DefendTheConstitution

As Zimbabwe approaches a critical stage in the consideration of Constitutional Amendment Bill No. 3, the Convener of the Constitution Defenders Forum, TENDAI BITI, presents a detailed analysis of the Bill, its constitutional implications, and the dangers it poses to democratic governance, constitutionalism, and the sovereignty of the people. At this crucial juncture, as Parliament prepares to deliberate on this far-reaching constitutional amendment, we encourage all citizens to engage with the issues, understand what is at stake, and participate in the defence of the Constitution. Watch the full video here: #RejectAmendmentNo3 #DefendTheConstitution

Constitution Defenders Forum

15,189 次观看 • 2 个月前

📹 The Constitutional Defenders Forum, National Constitutional Assembly and Defend the Constitution Platform call on Zimbabweans to “disengage” from Constitutional Amendment No. 3 Bill public hearings calling them “fundamentally flawed.” They call for a “citizen-driven response”

📹 The Constitutional Defenders Forum, National Constitutional Assembly and Defend the Constitution Platform call on Zimbabweans to “disengage” from Constitutional Amendment No. 3 Bill public hearings calling them “fundamentally flawed.” They call for a “citizen-driven response”

ZimLive

87,379 次观看 • 4 个月前

WATCH | Zimbabwean Civic and Opposition Political leaders have withdrawn from public hearings into the proposed Constitution Amendment Bill. Constitutional lawyer Adv Fadzayi Mahere says the process is being rushed and that ZANU-PF is scared, as it does not want people to speak out.

WATCH | Zimbabwean Civic and Opposition Political leaders have withdrawn from public hearings into the proposed Constitution Amendment Bill. Constitutional lawyer Adv Fadzayi Mahere says the process is being rushed and that ZANU-PF is scared, as it does not want people to speak out.

SABC News

58,799 次观看 • 4 个月前

I have listened to the debate on Constitutional Amendment Bill No. 3 between legal scholar Dr Justice Mavedzenge and political scientist Prof Jonathan Moyo today on Twitter. Without any doubt, Dr Justice Mavedzenge explained, clarified, and made ordinary people understand the issues, and more importantly, in my humble view, he won the debate on whether there is need for Constitutional Amendment Bill No. 3 to be subjected to a referendum or not. Anything done for the people, as Prof Jonathan Moyo says these monumental amendments are, should be subjected to the people. The Constitution is not ambiguous on this. It is clear that term limits should be subjected to a referendum for any change to be done legally. Under Section 328 of the Constitution of Zimbabwe, any amendment that seeks to extend the length of time a President may hold office, or to remove or alter term limits in a way that benefits an incumbent, cannot apply to the sitting President and must be subjected to constitutional safeguards. You cannot claim to be doing something for the people and yet deny those same people the right to have a say. Prof Jonathan Moyo has a right to his views, but those views must be subjected to the law for the amendments to be implemented legally, and based on what I have read in our Constitution, his views are not aligned with the law. And I am not making this up. It is in the Constitution. Even veteran Zimbabwean lawyer and former ZANUPF legal secretary, Patrick Chinamasa, has said so. In this video, he explains in front of President Mnangagwa that what they are attempting to do today, which Prof Jonathan Moyo argues does not require a referendum, would in fact require two referendums. One to remove or alter presidential term limits from five to seven years, and another to extend the sitting president’s tenure to 2030. This position was declared, and not contradicted, at a ZANUPF conference in Bulawayo. What the broader legal fraternity in Zimbabwe is saying, save for a few lawyers who have since revised their positions and now echo the same view, is that the Constitution is explicit on these prescripts. Anything else is political propaganda to win hearts and minds. The problem with propaganda is that it cannot be anchored in constitutional provisions. It rests on opinion. In this instance, however, we are not expressing opinions. We are stating what is contained in the Constitution and what ZANUPF itself has previously acknowledged. You can decide today that you want a 20-year presidential term. That is your right to hold that view, but you must subject that proposition to the law. If you believe in it, take it to the citizens in the manner prescribed by the Constitution. You cannot decide, through opinion or political argument, whether a referendum is required or not. That question is not settled by what anyone thinks. It is settled by what the law says. If the Constitution requires a referendum, then you must subject yourself to it. That is how constitutional democracy works. We know that the judiciary in Zimbabwe is captured. We know how they are going to rule, but the whole world knows the truth, that if they rule in favour of these amendments going ahead without a referendum, they are simply a captured judiciary without the respect that is required for anyone holding such an important office, and history will remember them as such.

I have listened to the debate on Constitutional Amendment Bill No. 3 between legal scholar Dr Justice Mavedzenge and political scientist Prof Jonathan Moyo today on Twitter. Without any doubt, Dr Justice Mavedzenge explained, clarified, and made ordinary people understand the issues, and more importantly, in my humble view, he won the debate on whether there is need for Constitutional Amendment Bill No. 3 to be subjected to a referendum or not. Anything done for the people, as Prof Jonathan Moyo says these monumental amendments are, should be subjected to the people. The Constitution is not ambiguous on this. It is clear that term limits should be subjected to a referendum for any change to be done legally. Under Section 328 of the Constitution of Zimbabwe, any amendment that seeks to extend the length of time a President may hold office, or to remove or alter term limits in a way that benefits an incumbent, cannot apply to the sitting President and must be subjected to constitutional safeguards. You cannot claim to be doing something for the people and yet deny those same people the right to have a say. Prof Jonathan Moyo has a right to his views, but those views must be subjected to the law for the amendments to be implemented legally, and based on what I have read in our Constitution, his views are not aligned with the law. And I am not making this up. It is in the Constitution. Even veteran Zimbabwean lawyer and former ZANUPF legal secretary, Patrick Chinamasa, has said so. In this video, he explains in front of President Mnangagwa that what they are attempting to do today, which Prof Jonathan Moyo argues does not require a referendum, would in fact require two referendums. One to remove or alter presidential term limits from five to seven years, and another to extend the sitting president’s tenure to 2030. This position was declared, and not contradicted, at a ZANUPF conference in Bulawayo. What the broader legal fraternity in Zimbabwe is saying, save for a few lawyers who have since revised their positions and now echo the same view, is that the Constitution is explicit on these prescripts. Anything else is political propaganda to win hearts and minds. The problem with propaganda is that it cannot be anchored in constitutional provisions. It rests on opinion. In this instance, however, we are not expressing opinions. We are stating what is contained in the Constitution and what ZANUPF itself has previously acknowledged. You can decide today that you want a 20-year presidential term. That is your right to hold that view, but you must subject that proposition to the law. If you believe in it, take it to the citizens in the manner prescribed by the Constitution. You cannot decide, through opinion or political argument, whether a referendum is required or not. That question is not settled by what anyone thinks. It is settled by what the law says. If the Constitution requires a referendum, then you must subject yourself to it. That is how constitutional democracy works. We know that the judiciary in Zimbabwe is captured. We know how they are going to rule, but the whole world knows the truth, that if they rule in favour of these amendments going ahead without a referendum, they are simply a captured judiciary without the respect that is required for anyone holding such an important office, and history will remember them as such.

Hopewell Chin’ono

62,328 次观看 • 5 个月前

SANYATI — THE MESSAGE WAS REINSTATED At the burial of Cde Geza in Sanyati, CDF Convener Hon Tendai Biti reaffirmed what we have consistently said, the defence of the Constitution is not optional, it is a national duty. The message is clear and it was powerfully restated in Sanyati 'Muchato Wenyika Haupfachurwe', Zimbabwe must resist any attempt to mutilate the 2013 Constitution or extend power beyond the people’s mandate. CDF is engaging. CDF is listening. CDF is building bridges. We remain open to all genuine democratic forces, across divides, who are committed to stopping the 2030 Agenda and protecting constitutional order. We also acknowledge the efforts and contribution of Cde Bombshell Geza in the broader struggle for accountability and democratic governance. The struggle continues. The Constitution must be defended. Hopewell Chin’ono African Dhara Blessed Mhlanga #NoTo2030 #MuchatoWenyikaHaupfachurwe #ZviganandaMiswai #DefendTheConstitution

SANYATI — THE MESSAGE WAS REINSTATED At the burial of Cde Geza in Sanyati, CDF Convener Hon Tendai Biti reaffirmed what we have consistently said, the defence of the Constitution is not optional, it is a national duty. The message is clear and it was powerfully restated in Sanyati 'Muchato Wenyika Haupfachurwe', Zimbabwe must resist any attempt to mutilate the 2013 Constitution or extend power beyond the people’s mandate. CDF is engaging. CDF is listening. CDF is building bridges. We remain open to all genuine democratic forces, across divides, who are committed to stopping the 2030 Agenda and protecting constitutional order. We also acknowledge the efforts and contribution of Cde Bombshell Geza in the broader struggle for accountability and democratic governance. The struggle continues. The Constitution must be defended. Hopewell Chin’ono African Dhara Blessed Mhlanga #NoTo2030 #MuchatoWenyikaHaupfachurwe #ZviganandaMiswai #DefendTheConstitution

Constitution Defenders Forum

18,276 次观看 • 5 个月前

“The People Did Not Ask for This Bill" - Hon. Karenyi Kore Rejects CAB 3 in Parliament Hon. Karenyi Kore's contribution to the parliamentary debate on Constitutional Amendment Bill No. 3 (CAB 3). During the debate, Hon. Karenyi argued that the people of Zimbabwe did not ask for the Bill and called for it to be subjected to a referendum. She also raised concerns about electoral reforms, political violence, corruption, and the need for an electoral system that citizens can trust. "The people did not ask for this Bill. CAB 3 does not create a single job and should be subjected to a referendum to avoid a conflict of interest. We want an electoral system citizens can trust. People want opportunities, not an extension of political power. The problem is not the Constitution; it is political violence and corruption. The voice of the people must remain the voice of our democracy. I stand with unemployed youth, farmers, vendors, workers, mothers and pensioners." — Hon. Karenyi Kore during debate on Constitutional Amendment Bill No. 3.

“The People Did Not Ask for This Bill" - Hon. Karenyi Kore Rejects CAB 3 in Parliament Hon. Karenyi Kore's contribution to the parliamentary debate on Constitutional Amendment Bill No. 3 (CAB 3). During the debate, Hon. Karenyi argued that the people of Zimbabwe did not ask for the Bill and called for it to be subjected to a referendum. She also raised concerns about electoral reforms, political violence, corruption, and the need for an electoral system that citizens can trust. "The people did not ask for this Bill. CAB 3 does not create a single job and should be subjected to a referendum to avoid a conflict of interest. We want an electoral system citizens can trust. People want opportunities, not an extension of political power. The problem is not the Constitution; it is political violence and corruption. The voice of the people must remain the voice of our democracy. I stand with unemployed youth, farmers, vendors, workers, mothers and pensioners." — Hon. Karenyi Kore during debate on Constitutional Amendment Bill No. 3.

Change Radio

32,506 次观看 • 1 个月前

Veteran lawyer, Cde Paul Mangwana, with nearly 40 years of experience in the legal profession, who also serves as the ZANU PF Secretary for Mines and Energy, shed more light on the Constitutional Amendment Bill No. 3 today. He made it clear that there is no need for a referendum because this bill does not seek to amend the Bill of Rights, Chapter 16, and Section 328 of the Constitution. This implies that conducting a referendum would actually transgress the intrinsic provisions of the Constitution. As such, this bill must simply be adopted by a 2/3 majority by Parliament. When fine, intellectual heavyweights and outstanding lawyers like Cde Paul Mangwana speak, we must listen attentively. 2030 Baba Va Mnangagwa vanenge vachitonga!!!!! #ED2030 #Bill3BHOOO

Veteran lawyer, Cde Paul Mangwana, with nearly 40 years of experience in the legal profession, who also serves as the ZANU PF Secretary for Mines and Energy, shed more light on the Constitutional Amendment Bill No. 3 today. He made it clear that there is no need for a referendum because this bill does not seek to amend the Bill of Rights, Chapter 16, and Section 328 of the Constitution. This implies that conducting a referendum would actually transgress the intrinsic provisions of the Constitution. As such, this bill must simply be adopted by a 2/3 majority by Parliament. When fine, intellectual heavyweights and outstanding lawyers like Cde Paul Mangwana speak, we must listen attentively. 2030 Baba Va Mnangagwa vanenge vachitonga!!!!! #ED2030 #Bill3BHOOO

hazel

10,742 次观看 • 4 个月前

In the second matter before the Constitutional Court, filed by former opposition Member of Parliament Prince Dubeko Sibanda, the argument was that Parliament could not lawfully debate Constitutional Amendment Bill No. 3 because the bill itself is unconstitutional. The Constitutional Court ruled that the application was not yet ripe for determination, meaning that the parliamentary process must first run its course before the applicant can return to court to challenge the outcome. Once again, many lawyers have described the Court’s approach as an example of constitutional avoidance. In their view, the Court is declining to engage with the substantive constitutional questions now and is instead postponing their determination. However, the issues will not disappear. Even if the matter proceeds through the High Court first, it is almost inevitable that it will eventually return to the Constitutional Court on appeal for a final determination on the merits. In short, the Constitutional Court has not resolved the constitutional questions surrounding CAB 3; it has merely deferred them.

In the second matter before the Constitutional Court, filed by former opposition Member of Parliament Prince Dubeko Sibanda, the argument was that Parliament could not lawfully debate Constitutional Amendment Bill No. 3 because the bill itself is unconstitutional. The Constitutional Court ruled that the application was not yet ripe for determination, meaning that the parliamentary process must first run its course before the applicant can return to court to challenge the outcome. Once again, many lawyers have described the Court’s approach as an example of constitutional avoidance. In their view, the Court is declining to engage with the substantive constitutional questions now and is instead postponing their determination. However, the issues will not disappear. Even if the matter proceeds through the High Court first, it is almost inevitable that it will eventually return to the Constitutional Court on appeal for a final determination on the merits. In short, the Constitutional Court has not resolved the constitutional questions surrounding CAB 3; it has merely deferred them.

Hopewell Chin’ono

39,069 次观看 • 1 个月前

FORMER OPPOSITION MEMBERS BACK CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT NO. 3 Former opposition members have backed the Constitutional Amendment No. 3 Bill, citing its potential to enhance national stability and accelerate infrastructure development. Paddington Japajapa says the proposed changes are key to achieving Zimbabwe’s upper-middle-income economy target by 2030. #ZBCNews #Zimbabwe #Policy #Constitution #Development #Vision2030

FORMER OPPOSITION MEMBERS BACK CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT NO. 3 Former opposition members have backed the Constitutional Amendment No. 3 Bill, citing its potential to enhance national stability and accelerate infrastructure development. Paddington Japajapa says the proposed changes are key to achieving Zimbabwe’s upper-middle-income economy target by 2030. #ZBCNews #Zimbabwe #Policy #Constitution #Development #Vision2030

ZBC News

31,412 次观看 • 3 个月前

Yesterday, our Judiciary Committee passed HR 38, National Reciprocity. I support this bill, but there is a better option, and it is National Constitutional Carry. 29 states already have Constitutional (i.e. permitless) Carry. Why not extend it to all 50 states? Under HR 38 (Reciprocity), a resident of one of the Constitutional Carry states can carry in any state that allows their citizens to obtain a permit. The recent “Bruen” Supreme Court decision requires all states that aren’t Constitutional Carry to issue carry permits to their citizens. This means that when HR 38 passes, any resident of those 29 Constitutional Carry states will be able to carry in any of the 50 states without a permit. Ironically, however, residents of the 21 states (like New York or California) that aren’t Constitutional Carry will need a permit to carry in their own state, while visitors from states that are Constitutional Carry (like Kentucky or Ohio) won’t need a permit to carry in states like New York or California. If Congress, relying on the Second Amendment, can force California to allow “Permitless” Carry for Kentuckians who visit California, why would we not force California to allow “Permitless” Carry for Californians who are in California? In other words, why not pass National Constitutional Carry and afford everyone in the United States the right to “bear arms” which is enshrined in the Constitution? The other quirk of HR 38 is that (I believe) it would allow a person from Kentucky to carry an AR-15 pistol with a 20-round magazine in California, while Californians would not be allowed to carry, or even own, the same equipment. The Supreme Court decision in “D.C. v. Heller,” whether you agree with it or not, allows states to have some regulations on firearm equipment and eligibility to possess, but HR 38 seems to contradict that framework. Contrast this with my National Constitutional Carry bill which basically says if a state allows people to possess (KEEP) a particular firearm, that state must also allow people to carry (BEAR) that firearm. I introduced my National Constitutional Carry bill in committee yesterday as a substitute amendment to HR 38, National Reciprocity. After introducing the amendment for the record and describing it, I withdrew the amendment instead of putting my Judiciary Committee colleagues in the position of deciding whether to replace National Reciprocity with National Constitutional Carry. The dilemma is that not enough Republicans in the whole House understand the difference, and the prevailing opinion is that Reciprocity can pass the whole House, but Constitutional Carry cannot. Perhaps when more of my colleagues who are not on the Judiciary Committee understand why we should pass National Constitutional Carry instead of (or in addition to) National Reciprocity, we can make a strong push to report National Constitutional Carry out of the Judiciary Committee for a vote in the full House of Representatives. In the meantime, I’m glad HR 38 is going to the House floor for a vote.

Yesterday, our Judiciary Committee passed HR 38, National Reciprocity. I support this bill, but there is a better option, and it is National Constitutional Carry. 29 states already have Constitutional (i.e. permitless) Carry. Why not extend it to all 50 states? Under HR 38 (Reciprocity), a resident of one of the Constitutional Carry states can carry in any state that allows their citizens to obtain a permit. The recent “Bruen” Supreme Court decision requires all states that aren’t Constitutional Carry to issue carry permits to their citizens. This means that when HR 38 passes, any resident of those 29 Constitutional Carry states will be able to carry in any of the 50 states without a permit. Ironically, however, residents of the 21 states (like New York or California) that aren’t Constitutional Carry will need a permit to carry in their own state, while visitors from states that are Constitutional Carry (like Kentucky or Ohio) won’t need a permit to carry in states like New York or California. If Congress, relying on the Second Amendment, can force California to allow “Permitless” Carry for Kentuckians who visit California, why would we not force California to allow “Permitless” Carry for Californians who are in California? In other words, why not pass National Constitutional Carry and afford everyone in the United States the right to “bear arms” which is enshrined in the Constitution? The other quirk of HR 38 is that (I believe) it would allow a person from Kentucky to carry an AR-15 pistol with a 20-round magazine in California, while Californians would not be allowed to carry, or even own, the same equipment. The Supreme Court decision in “D.C. v. Heller,” whether you agree with it or not, allows states to have some regulations on firearm equipment and eligibility to possess, but HR 38 seems to contradict that framework. Contrast this with my National Constitutional Carry bill which basically says if a state allows people to possess (KEEP) a particular firearm, that state must also allow people to carry (BEAR) that firearm. I introduced my National Constitutional Carry bill in committee yesterday as a substitute amendment to HR 38, National Reciprocity. After introducing the amendment for the record and describing it, I withdrew the amendment instead of putting my Judiciary Committee colleagues in the position of deciding whether to replace National Reciprocity with National Constitutional Carry. The dilemma is that not enough Republicans in the whole House understand the difference, and the prevailing opinion is that Reciprocity can pass the whole House, but Constitutional Carry cannot. Perhaps when more of my colleagues who are not on the Judiciary Committee understand why we should pass National Constitutional Carry instead of (or in addition to) National Reciprocity, we can make a strong push to report National Constitutional Carry out of the Judiciary Committee for a vote in the full House of Representatives. In the meantime, I’m glad HR 38 is going to the House floor for a vote.

Thomas Massie

229,372 次观看 • 1 年前

The #Chagos Surrender Bill is fundamentally flawed and not in the UK’s national interest. It betrays the Chagossian community by excluding them from meaningful consultation and offers no clarity on their future rights or role. The Labour Government’s legal justification for the deal is weak—there is no binding UNCLOS threat—and its costings are opaque, unreliable, and potentially misleading. The Bill also strips Parliament of oversight, granting sweeping powers to Ministers through Orders in Council. Strategically, it undermines UK security in the Indian Ocean, handing advantage to China, which seeks greater control of key maritime routes through its ties with Mauritius. In short, the Bill is legally unnecessary, financially unsound, democratically unacceptable, and geopolitically dangerous. It is no good for the Government to come back later and say, “I wish we hadn’t done this.” Now is the time to stand up and say that this does not work, it must stop, and the Government must think again.

The #Chagos Surrender Bill is fundamentally flawed and not in the UK’s national interest. It betrays the Chagossian community by excluding them from meaningful consultation and offers no clarity on their future rights or role. The Labour Government’s legal justification for the deal is weak—there is no binding UNCLOS threat—and its costings are opaque, unreliable, and potentially misleading. The Bill also strips Parliament of oversight, granting sweeping powers to Ministers through Orders in Council. Strategically, it undermines UK security in the Indian Ocean, handing advantage to China, which seeks greater control of key maritime routes through its ties with Mauritius. In short, the Bill is legally unnecessary, financially unsound, democratically unacceptable, and geopolitically dangerous. It is no good for the Government to come back later and say, “I wish we hadn’t done this.” Now is the time to stand up and say that this does not work, it must stop, and the Government must think again.

Iain Duncan Smith MP Chingford & Woodford Green

94,927 次观看 • 10 个月前

The Scottish Parliament has spoken. A significant majority of MSPs has voted to affirm the right of people in Scotland to decide their constitutional future. This is democracy and it must be respected. Scotland’s future must be in Scotland’s hands. 🏴󠁧󠁢󠁳󠁣󠁴󠁿

The Scottish Parliament has spoken. A significant majority of MSPs has voted to affirm the right of people in Scotland to decide their constitutional future. This is democracy and it must be respected. Scotland’s future must be in Scotland’s hands. 🏴󠁧󠁢󠁳󠁣󠁴󠁿

John Swinney

106,691 次观看 • 2 个月前

PRIYANK KHARGE : "RSS must disclose its registration details, pay taxes, comply with the law and Constitution" "If RSS has to continue its activities in Karnataka they have to work within legal and constitutional framework" "I am an optimist; sure that RSS has nothing to hide. It should put national duty above everything"

PRIYANK KHARGE : "RSS must disclose its registration details, pay taxes, comply with the law and Constitution" "If RSS has to continue its activities in Karnataka they have to work within legal and constitutional framework" "I am an optimist; sure that RSS has nothing to hide. It should put national duty above everything"

News Algebra

130,915 次观看 • 1 个月前

Hatcliffe MP Agency Gumbo said Constitutional Amendment Bill No. 3 (CAB3) is attempting to turn the Zimbabwe National Army (ZNA) into "ana mahobho," arguing that the proposed changes could undermine the military's constitutional role and effectiveness.

Hatcliffe MP Agency Gumbo said Constitutional Amendment Bill No. 3 (CAB3) is attempting to turn the Zimbabwe National Army (ZNA) into "ana mahobho," arguing that the proposed changes could undermine the military's constitutional role and effectiveness.

263Chat.com 🇿🇼

26,692 次观看 • 1 个月前

A national budget is the people’s ledger. Kenyans must not be misled, and we must not be silent in the face of what points to the possible misappropriation of public funds. Accountability is not optional.

A national budget is the people’s ledger. Kenyans must not be misled, and we must not be silent in the face of what points to the possible misappropriation of public funds. Accountability is not optional.

Jimi Wanjigi

56,052 次观看 • 3 个月前

The 🇿🇼 constitution, born from sacrifices of the liberation struggle of 1980 and democratic aspirations ignited in 1999, is a testament to the will of the Zimbabwean people that voted ‘YES’ in the 2013 constitutional referendum. We say #NoTo2030 presidential term extensions!

The 🇿🇼 constitution, born from sacrifices of the liberation struggle of 1980 and democratic aspirations ignited in 1999, is a testament to the will of the Zimbabwean people that voted ‘YES’ in the 2013 constitutional referendum. We say #NoTo2030 presidential term extensions!

Makomborero Haruzivishe

24,465 次观看 • 9 个月前