UK distances itself from Zim’s constitutional amendment debate

The United Kingdom has distanced itself from Zimbabwe’s ongoing constitutional debate, with British Ambassador to Zimbabwe Pete Vowles insisting that the proposed Constitutional Amendment Bill No. 3 is a domestic matter for Zimbabweans to decide. Theamendment bill, which is under discussion in Zimbabwe, has generated significant political debate as it proposes changes that could allow President Emmerson Mnangagwa to extend his stay in office beyond the current two-term constitutional limit.

Responding to questions on the matter, Vowles said the UK government would not interfere in Zimbabwe’s constitutional processes. “It’s important to emphasise our view as the British government that this is a domestic, sovereign issue, not a British issue,” he said. “We are a foreign government, many thousands of kilometres away.

This is for Zimbabweans, for all of you Zimbabwean citizens to decide what you want to do about your constitution. It is not for me to make a judgement, not for the British government to make a judgment on that.” Vowles’ remarks come amid growing international attention on the proposed amendments, including debate within the House of Lords, where some members have called for a stronger stance against what they described as attempts to entrench power by the ruling Zanu PF party. Read:https://cite.org.zw/uk-lords-clash-over-zim-constitutional-changes/ However, Vowles reiterated that while such discussions may occur abroad, they do not translate into an official British government position on Zimbabwe’s constitutional direction.

[paywall]

“Many people want this to become a British issue. This is not a British issue or an international issue. It’s for Zimbabwe and Zimbabweans to decide how you want your country,” he said.

The ambassador pointed to findings by the Zimbabwe Human Rights Commission (ZHRC), noting while its recent report had been referenced internationally, it remains a Zimbabwean institution whose observations should be interpreted within a domestic context. “We saw the ZHRC report, particularly there was a report about the positives and of course that paragraph in the end about what ZHRC raised would certainly, I imagine, be an issue for Zimbabweans. But then again this is a Zimbabwean institution reporting.

This is not a UK issue,” he said. While maintaining a position of non-interference, Vowles suggested Zimbabwe’s decisions on governance could have implications for its international standing, particularly as the country seeks to re-engage globally.

[/paywall]