Concourt Reserves Judgment On Constitutional Amendment Challenge

The Constitutional Court of Zimbabwe has reserved judgment in two linked cases challenging proposed constitutional amendments that could extend presidential and parliamentary terms, amid arguments that the changes would unlawfully benefit sitting office holders.

The cases were brought by a group of war veterans led by Reuben Zulu and by former opposition MP Prince Dubeko Sibanda. Both are being argued by constitutional law expert Lovemore Madhuku.

The applicants are contesting provisions linked to the Constitution Amendment Bill No. 3, which seeks to extend presidential and parliamentary terms from five to seven years and to introduce wider changes to the electoral system affecting the executive office.

At the heart of the dispute is Section 328(7) of the Constitution, which bars incumbents from benefiting from amendments that extend the length of their current or equivalent term.

Madhuku said arguments focused heavily on alleged breaches of this provision, which he described as an “incumbent-protection rule” designed to stop sitting leaders from extending their own tenure through constitutional changes.

He said the court heard submissions in both the war veterans’ case and the Sibanda application before reserving judgment.

Justice Ben Hlatshwayo is reported to have noted that some of the issues raised could potentially be addressed through a referendum, although no determination has yet been made.

The war veterans’ application argues that President Emmerson Mnangagwa improperly presided over Cabinet processes that approved amendments from which he would directly benefit, amounting to a conflict of interest and a breach of constitutional principles.

They are seeking an order barring the President from assenting to the proposed law and a declaration that the Cabinet’s approval of the Bill is invalid.

The Sibanda case similarly challenges clauses described as “constitutionally incompetent”, in particular provisions that seek to override Section 328(7) through wording such as “notwithstanding Section 328(7)”.

Sibanda is asking the court to strike out or remove the disputed clauses, or to compel Parliament to withdraw and reintroduce the Bill in a constitutionally compliant form.

Legal arguments also question whether the proposed changes unlawfully bypass the requirement for a referendum and whether they undermine citizens’ right to directly elect the head of state.

The Constitutional Amendment (No. 3) Bill has been one of the most contested pieces of proposed legislation in Zimbabwe in recent years.

The process has been accompanied by reports of intimidation at public hearings monitored by the Zimbabwe Human Rights Commission, legal challenges from civil society and opposition figures, and opposition from the Law Society of Zimbabwe, Catholic bishops, war veterans and other groups.

More: Bulawayo24