My brother, perhaps we continue to misunderstand each other. I have seen numerous tweets reflecting the same misunderstanding, and what troubles me is that many of the people posting them are educated adults who are failing to grasp a very simple distinction; calling something by a particular name does not automatically make it that thing. If I bring you a toy car and announce that it is my car, then every time someone says that Hopewell does not own a car, I produce the toy and shout, “You cannot say that I do not have a car, here is my car!” The fact that I have chosen to call my toy a car does not transform it into a real car. It still lacks an engine, a gearbox, wheels capable of carrying passengers and everything else that makes an object a functioning motor vehicle. So it is not a car. The same principle applies to the document that has circulated for years under the title of the CCC constitution. Merely placing the word “constitution” on its cover does not make it one. Calling that five-page document a constitution is an abuse of both language and constitutionalism. The problem is not its length; constitutions can be brief. The problem is that it does not constitute anything. It fails to establish a recognisable institutional structure, define the party’s principal offices and organs, allocate and limit their powers, prescribe how leaders are elected, replaced or removed, or provide enforceable rules governing decision-making, discipline, internal disputes, appeals, finances, accountability and constitutional amendments. It offers vague political declarations and aspirations where binding rules should exist, leaving authority undefined, unconstrained and vulnerable to the whims of individuals. That institutional vacuum is precisely what allowed Sengezo Tshabangu to claim authority as the party’s interim secretary-general and recall elected representatives. When a political organisation has no clearly established offices, lawful appointment procedures, membership register or enforceable internal rules, anyone can emerge and claim authority while the party struggles to demonstrate, using its own foundational law, why that person has no such power. A genuine constitution creates institutions, distributes and regulates power, limits the discretion of leaders, protects the rights of members and provides predictable procedures for resolving disputes. The document you are defending does none of that in any serious way. It is a skeletal political statement masquerading as a constitution, and no amount of loyalty, repetition or academic sophistry can transform it into one. It is just a political slogan pamphlet. This distinction should be understood by an O-level student, yet I am watching people with university degrees fighting to prove that something is a constitution simply because its authors gave it that title. Other nationalities are watching in amazement as “educated” Zimbabweans argue over a point that should be elementary. I can sit down tonight, write five pages of political aspirations and call the document a constitution. That title would not magically supply the institutional architecture, enforceable rules, accountability mechanisms and limitations of power that I omitted. A constitution has identifiable characteristics and must perform specific functions. That document does not. The debate cannot be settled by repeatedly pointing to the title printed on its cover. The question is whether the contents create institutions, regulate authority and provide binding rules by which the organisation is governed. On that test, the document fails completely. It is no more a constitution than my toy is a motor vehicle. Real lawyers are quiet because they know that the document doesn’t meet the threshold of a constitution. Now let me end by addressing your tweet and explaining how journalism works. CCC released a document and called it its constitution. As a journalist, I shared it and said, This is the CCC constitution they have produced, so that the public could read it. Reporting the name the party gave the document was not an endorsement or certification that it met the threshold of a genuine constitution. After reading it, I concluded that it did not meet that threshold. That is why I challenged the former CCC leader to produce a constitution. If someone presents a toy as a car, I can report that he calls it his car and show it to the public. That does not oblige me to accept that it is a functioning motor vehicle. It must still be measured against the defining features of a car. The same applies here. Your screenshot reveals no contradiction. It simply shows the normal journalistic process. I reported the document, examined it and then criticised it. I hope this finally clarifies the matter. Otherwise, there is nothing more I can do or add.