Source: ConCourt on CAB3 challenge – herald
Fidelis Munyoro, munlord27@gmail.com
THE Constitutional Court has reserved its judgment in a case challenging the legality of Constitutional Amendment Bill No. 3, a proposal that could reshape the country’s democracy by extending President Mnangagwa’s term to 2030.
Submissions during the heated hearing reflected sharp contrasts between the parties, with the President’s legal team delivering a forceful rebuttal to allegations of constitutionality and potential conflicts of interest.
Advocate Sylvester Hashiti, representing the President, dismantled claims presented by the applicants, a group of war veterans led by Professor Lovemore Madhuku.
Addressing the full bench of the Constitutional Court, Adv Hashiti said the application lacked merit, urging outright dismissal.
Central to the war veterans’ argument was the assertion that the proposed amendment, which seeks to alter the method of electing the President and extend both Presidential and Parliamentary terms by two years, undermines constitutional norms.
They claimed President Mnangagwa had a conflict of interest in participating in Cabinet deliberations that advanced a Bill, which they see as directly benefiting him.
Prof Madhuku argued that the President’s involvement breached constitutional provisions requiring public officers to avoid personal interest conflicts.
He submitted that the proposed transition from universal suffrage to a system where Parliament elects the President violates the values of the liberation struggle, including the principle of “one man, one vote.”
“The first respondent (The President) presided over a Cabinet meeting that approved a proposal from which he personally stands to benefit,” Prof Madhuku asserted.
He cited Section 196(2) of the Constitution, which mandates integrity and impartiality from public officials, as undeniable evidence of misconduct.
Despite these submissions, Adv Hashiti countered, arguing that the allegations were unfounded and speculative.
He stressed that the applicants failed to establish any evidence that President Mnangagwa initiated the Bill or had improper input in its formulation for personal gain.
“Nowhere does the pleaded case allege that the President initiated this Bill or acted unlawfully,” Adv Hashiti said.
He further dismissed the argument that the amendment undermines the liberation struggle’s values, contending that such principles, while historically significant, are not explicitly defined in the Constitution.
Adv Hashiti drove his point home with a comparison to other branches of government, noting that power derived from the people does not always equate to direct votes.
“Judicial authority stems from the people, yet the people do not directly choose judges. Similarly, legislative and executive powers derive from the people, but representatives and Cabinet members are not directly elected either. The proposed Bill does not erode rights or contradict constitutional principles,” he argued.
Adv Hashiti went further to challenge the timing of the application, stating that it was premature to litigate as the Bill was still undergoing legislative processes.
He argued that considering this challenge now would undermine Parliament’s constitutional mandate to interrogate laws before their enactment.
Meanwhile, despite the war veterans’ impassioned challenge, the President’s legal team’s submissions clearly sought to position the matter solely as a constitutional process still requiring full parliamentary scrutiny, far from the alleged breach of public trust.
Earlier, the ConCourt heard and reserved judgment in a similar constitutional challenge filed by former Binga North legislator Prince Dubeko Sibanda against the Constitutional Amendment (No. 3) Bill, 2026.
Sibanda is seeking to block key provisions of the proposed law, arguing that clauses extending the terms of the President and Parliament violate constitutional amendment procedures and are “constitutionally incompetent”.
The former MP— who won the Binga North seat in the 2013, 2018 and 2023 general elections before his recall later that year—filed the application citing Parliament as the respondent.
At the heart of the dispute are provisions that would extend the tenure of current office holders despite constitutional safeguards designed to prevent incumbents from benefiting from changes made during their term of office.
The legal challenge came after the Constitution of Zimbabwe Amendment (No. 3) Bill, 2026, was gazetted on February 16, a move that triggered a mandatory 90-day public consultation process ahead of parliamentary debate and voting.
The ruling on the two cases by the ConCourt, awaited with bated breath, will determine whether the proposed amendments pass the test of constitutionality.
Zimbabweans now wait as the highest court deliberates these significant cases that could define the trajectory of the country’s governance for years to come.
The post ConCourt on CAB3 challenge appeared first on Zimbabwe Situation.