Tinotenda Hove – Freedom Fighters for Change leader Michael Makaza has launched a sharp attack on the Constitutional Amendment Bill No. 3 (CAB3), accusing the Government of using the process as a distraction from worsening economic challenges.

In a strongly worded statement on Thursday titled “NO TO CAB3 — YES TO DEVELOPMENT”, Makaza said the ruling establishment was deliberately shifting public attention away from urgent national problems.

“My fellow Zimbabweans,” he began, before launching into a direct criticism of the Government’s priorities.

“A failing government has one trick left: distract you,” he said. “When they cannot deliver jobs, hospitals, or clean water, they create drama. That’s what CAB3 is — a useless law made to shift your eyes away from the real crisis: no development.”

Makaza accused the ruling party of resisting meaningful economic progress, arguing that development would strengthen accountability and empower citizens.

“ZANU-PF fears development. Because development means informed citizens. It means accountability. It means people who can say ‘NO’,” he said.

He further criticised the pace and method of public consultation on the bill, describing it as rushed and inaccessible to ordinary citizens.
“So instead of fixing the economy, they manufacture fake emergencies. They rush laws in 96 hours and call it ‘consultation’. They tell you to email when you have no data,” Makaza said.

Despite what he described as political pressure and manipulation, Makaza insisted the opposition movement would not be swayed.
“But we are not fooled,” he said. “We say NO to CAB3. We say YES to development. We demand fairness. We demand that the people’s voice be heard.”

He emphasised that national decision-making should be grounded in citizen participation rather than party control.

“This country belongs to its people. Not to a party. Not to a faction,” he said. “The power is not in their offices. Power to the people.”

The statement adds to growing political debate surrounding the Constitutional Amendment Bill, with critics questioning both the timing and inclusivity of the consultation process, while government officials maintain that the reforms are part of broader national governance adjustments.