By Allan Chipoyi
In times of political chaos and turmoil, what should remain are independent bodies.
When governments fracture, when trust in leadership erodes, and when the noise of political conflict drowns out the voices of ordinary people, there is absolutely something quiet and enduring that tends to survive, and this obviously is independent bodies.
By the nature of their existence, independent institutions are built not on the shifting sands of popular opinion or partisan loyalty but on the bedrock of principle, process and accountability.
Background
On 10 April 2026, the people of Zimbabwe were shocked, but unsurprisingly, to receive the news of the “re-assignment” of the then Chairperson of the Zimbabwe Human Rights Commission, Ms Jessie Fungai Majome, to the Public Service Commission as a Commissioner by the Republican President.
This definitely sits not as a mere and ordinary reassignment but rather a political power play at the disposal of the Head of State as an appointing authority.
The reassignment of Ms Majome follows a damning four-page press statement on 7 April regarding the public hearings on the Constitutional Amendment Bill 3 of 2026.
The statement read by Ms Majome on behalf of the Commission exposed a plethora of irregularities, shortcomings, as well as human rights concerns in relation to public consultations conducted by the Parliament of Zimbabwe from 30th March to 2nd April 2026.
By issuing the press statement expressing human rights concerns inasmuch as the Constitutional Amendment Bill 3 is concerned, and not glossing over the chaos and violence that erupted during the parliamentary public consultative processes, the Human Rights Commission did its job as per the constitutional provisions.
Section 243 of the Zimbabwean constitution clearly sets out the functions of the Commission, and one of them as spelt out in subsection (c) of the same section is to monitor, assess and ensure observance of human rights and freedoms.
In monitoring and assessing the human rights situation during the public hearings, the Commission found concerning human rights issues which it deemed fit to address.
The Commission also highlighted possible human rights shortcomings that the enactment of the Constitutional Amendment Bill 3 would have.
What the law says
The appointment of Commissioners of the Constitution’s Chapter 12 Commissions, and their removal from office, are clearly set out by the Constitution.
Both the appointment and removal of these officers is not a unilateral decision by the appointing authority but rather comes from collective steps that support the decision of appointing or removing a member from office by the President.
The Constitution of Zimbabwe does not in any way recognise “re-assignment” as a legal mechanism of terminating or interrupting the tenure of a member of an independent commission.
Where any conduct, irrespective of its label, has the effect of removing a member of an independent commission from office, it must comply strictly with section 237(3) of the Constitution, which says:
“The procedure for the removal of judges from office applies to the removal from office of a member of an independent Commission,” as read with section 187 of the Constitution.
These provisions include setting up a tribunal which assesses and investigates whether a member is fit to continue holding office or not and makes recommendations.
A member of an independent commission may only be removed from office by the President pursuant to the recommendation of a duly constituted tribunal.
In this case, nothing of the sort has happened.
Maintaining integrity and independence of Commissions
History has shown us again and again that where there is an invisible hand of influence in the operationalisation of independent commissions, public confidence and trust in the governance structures are lost.
The independence of these institutions and their integrity should never be tampered with.
Where such integrity and independence are not respected, democracies have stumbled, administrations have collapsed, and ideologies have fallen like tides.
These institutions should remain independent in their work.
These institutions are, in many ways, the quiet conscience of a society.
They don’t govern with fanfare.
They work deliberately with available legal statutes, not on account of political fanfare.
They work through the careful review of public accounts and the patient investigation of abuse.
Their power is not loud, but it is real and supported by fundamental constitutional principles.
What makes them so essential in moments of crisis is precisely their independent voice.
They answer to the law, not to whoever currently holds power.
They protect citizens not because it is politically convenient, but because that is their fundamental purpose.
Allan Chipoyi is a Human Rights Activist. He writes in his personal capacity
