By Arnold Tsunga
A Constitutional anniversary and an African reflection
On 26 June 2026, I had the privilege of participating, at the invitation of the Office of the Chief Justice of South Africa, in a seminar and exhibition commemorating the 30th anniversary of South Africa’s Constitution. As a longstanding technical partner of the South African Judicial Education Institute (SAJEI), I expected a celebration of an important constitutional milestone. What I did not anticipate was how profoundly the discussions would provoke reflection on the constitutional conversations taking place elsewhere on our continent, including in my own country, Zimbabwe.
As one constitutional democracy, South Africa, celebrates three decades of constitutionalism by reaffirming the supremacy of its Constitution, another constitutional democracy, Zimbabwe, is simultaneously engaged in an important national conversation about how constitutional change should occur. The contrast is not intended to praise one country or criticise another. Rather, it illustrates a timeless constitutional truth: the enduring strength of any constitution lies not only in the text it contains but also in the constitutional culture that surrounds it.
Constitutional supremacy: The Constitution above all
Several themes emerged repeatedly throughout the seminar commemorating 30 years of South Africa’s Constitution.
Deputy Chief Justice Dunstan Mlambo reminded participants that section 2 of South Africa’s Constitution proclaims the Constitution and not Parliament, nor the Executive, nor any other institution or organ of government as the supreme law of the Republic. I could not help but notice that Zimbabwe’s Constitution contains the same foundational principle. Constitutional supremacy, Deputy Chief Justice Mlambo observed, is not simply a legal doctrine. It is the organising principle upon which constitutional democracy rests.
Public participation Is a constitutional imperative
Equally striking was the Deputy Chief Justice’s emphasis on public participation. Referring to the Constitutional Court’s decision in Doctors for Life International v Speaker of the National Assembly and Others, he observed that public participation in law-making is not a decorative feature of democracy nor a privilege extended at the discretion of government. It is a constitutional imperative.
A legislature therefore fulfils not only a representative function but also a constitutional obligation to facilitate meaningful public participation in legislative processes, particularly where matters of profound constitutional significance are concerned.
Another memorable observation was that societies in which people genuinely participate in making their constitutions are far more likely to defend and preserve them. Constitutions become enduring national compacts not because they are imposed by institutions of government, but because citizens recognise themselves as their authors and custodians.
“We, the People”: The foundation of constitutional legitimacy
The seminar also returned repeatedly to the opening words of South Africa’s Constitution: “We, the People.”
In his address, Deputy Minister of Justice Andries Carl Nel reflected on the significance of those words. They remind us that constitutions derive their legitimacy not from governments but from the sovereign people on whose behalf governments exercise public power.
It is a simple constitutional idea, yet perhaps the most important of all: governments derive their authority from the Constitution, but the Constitution itself derives its authority from the people.
Judicial independence exists to protect the public
The discussions on judicial independence were equally instructive.
Echoing both Deputy Chief Justice Mlambo and Chief Justice Mandisa Maya, speakers emphasised that judicial independence is not a privilege bestowed upon judges by the State, nor a source of institutional prestige. It is a constitutional obligation binding upon every organ of State because an independent judiciary exists to protect constitutional rights, to hold the powerful accountable under the law, and to ensure that the weak receive equal protection of the law and justice.
This understanding transforms judicial independence from an institutional aspiration into a constitutional responsibility shared by every arm of government.
Lessons for Zimbabwe’s constitutional moment
These reflections inevitably prompted me to think about Zimbabwe’s present constitutional moment.
Zimbabwe is currently engaged in an important national debate concerning Constitutional Amendment Bill No. 3. Like many constitutional debates across Africa, the discussion extends far beyond the technical wording of proposed amendments. It raises broader questions about constitutional supremacy, public participation, popular sovereignty, political rights and the manner in which constitutions should evolve.
It would be inappropriate to compare constitutional systems as though one nation has perfected constitutional democracy while another has failed. Every constitutional democracy faces its own challenges, and every constitution is tested by the political pressures of its time.
Yet constitutional anniversaries provide valuable opportunities for reflection. They invite us to ask not only what our constitutions say, but also what constitutional values our institutions consistently affirm through their conduct.
Constitutional culture: The invisible strength of a constitution
Perhaps the most enduring lesson I carried away from Pretoria was this: constitutionalism is ultimately sustained by constitutional culture.
Where constitutional supremacy is understood to mean that every public institution is subordinate to the Constitution; where public participation is regarded as a constitutional obligation rather than a procedural courtesy; where judicial independence is protected because it safeguards citizens rather than judges; and where constitutional authority is understood to derive from “We, the People,” constitutional democracy acquires resilience far beyond the written text itself.
These are not uniquely South African values. They are universal constitutional principles that find expression across Africa’s constitutional traditions and within the African Union’s growing commitment to constitutional governance, democratic participation and the rule of law.
They also provide a valuable lens through which every African nation, including Zimbabwe, may reflect upon moments of constitutional reform.
Ultimately, constitutions are not preserved by courts alone, nor by parliaments, presidents or lawyers. They endure because citizens believe they belong to them and because constitutional office-bearers faithfully discharge the solemn responsibilities entrusted to them.
The enduring lesson from Pretoria
Perhaps that is the greatest lesson from Pretoria.
A constitution is not truly tested when it restrains those who oppose the government. It is truly tested when it restrains those who govern. When constitutional institutions willingly submit themselves to those restraints, constitutional democracy matures. When citizens see that fidelity to the Constitution transcends immediate political interests, public confidence in constitutional government is strengthened.
That is a lesson worth celebrating after 30 years of constitutional democracy. It is equally a lesson worth reflecting upon wherever constitutional change is contemplated across our continent, including in Zimbabwe.
Written from Pretoria during the commemoration of the 30th Anniversary of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa.
About the Author
Arnold Tsunga is a senior executive, lawyer and governance expert. He is the Principal Managing Partner at Tsunga Bamu Law International (TBLI) and Senior Policy and Legal Adviser at the Africa Judges and Jurists Forum (AJJF). He writes in his personal capacity.
