A CHALLENGE to the Zanu PF resolution to extend President Emmerson Mnangagwa’s term of office has been thrown into chaos after Speaker of the National Assembly Jacob Mudenda declared the application premature.
Mudenda is cited as a second respondent in a matter filed by Moreprecision Muzadzi and Pardon Gambakwe, who are seeking to stop Zanu PF from amending the Constitution to allow the extension of Mnangagwa’s stay in power by two years.
Mnangagwa, Justice minister Ziyambi Ziyambi, the Zimbabwe Electoral Commission, the Zimbabwe Human Rights Commission and the Attorney-General are also cited as respondents.
The application follows a Zanu PF resolution, made at its two most recent conferences, to extend the President’s term to 2030.
In their application, Muzadzi and Gambakwe are asking the Constitutional Court to declare the Zanu PF 2030 resolution “unconstitutional and invalid”.
They also want the court to compel Mudenda and Ziyambi to desist from implementing or advancing the resolution and affirm that the President’s final term ends in 2028, in accordance with section 95.
The applicants also want the court to reinforce that any attempt to alter presidential term limits should follow formal constitutional amendment procedures outlined under chapter 16 of the Constitution.
In his opposing affidavit, Mudenda described the application as “frivolous and vexatious”, arguing that the fears raised by the applicants are based on speculation rather than concrete legal process.
“To the best of my knowledge, no Constitutional Bill has been submitted to Cabinet,” Mudenda said.
“No Constitutional Bill has been gazetted in terms of section 328(3) of the Constitution. No Constitutional Bill has been tabled before Parliament.
“Further, no Constitutional Bill relating to the issues raised by the applicants has been passed by Parliament. The averments are clearly based on hypothetical scenarios.
“The court does not entertain hypothetical situations, and clearly, it does not pass judgments for academic purposes.”
“It is clearly speculative and based on hypothetical scenarios.
“The applicants are in dire need of legal representation. Their averments are bad at law and are based on a hypothetical set of facts.”
Mudenda further argued that the matter was not yet ready for judicial consideration.
“The matter is not ripe for adjudication and rests on hypothetical scenarios,” he said.
“It, therefore, has no prospects of success. The court has consistently held that it will not entertain matters that are not ripe for determination.
“The second respondent cannot be ordered, as prayed for in the main application, to initiate the process of removing a sitting President under section 97 of the Constitution.
“The applicants’ case is premised entirely on a hypothetical situation that they suggest might arise.
“Moreover, section 97 does not confer upon the second respondent any power to institute such a process.”
Meanwhile, human rights activist Mbuso Fuzwayo and his pressure group Ibhetshu LikaZulu have also filed a separate court application challenging the same resolution.
Fuzwayo and Ibhetshu Likhazulu argued that any attempt to extend Mnangagwa’s term will be unconstitutional and undermines the principles of democratic governance enshrined in the 2013 Constitution.
The post Mudenda trashes 2030 challenge appeared first on Zimbabwe Situation.