HARARE – The high-stakes legal gamble by a group of disgruntled liberation war veterans and an opposition legislator to derail President Emmerson Mnangagwa’s controversial constitutional overhaul hit a brick wall this Tuesday. In a ruling that has significant implications for the country’s political landscape, the Constitutional Court (ConCourt) dismissed the challenges against Constitutional Amendment Bill No. 3 (CAB3), effectively clearing the path for the legislation to proceed through a Parliament where the ruling Zanu PF party holds a commanding majority.
The apex court, presided over by a full bench led by Justice Bharat Patel, delivered a double blow to the applicants. The first case, brought forward by six war veterans—Reuben Zulu, Godfrey Gurira, Shoorai Nyamangodo, Joseph Chinyangare, Digmore Knowledge Ndiya, and Joseph Chinguwa—was thrown out on the grounds that it was “fatally defective.” A separate application by Prince Dubeko Sibanda, a former legislator for the Citizens Coalition for Change (CCC), was similarly dismissed, with the court ruling that his challenge was “premature” and “not yet ripe for determination.”
The ruling is a significant setback for the faction within the ruling party reportedly aligned with Vice President Constantino Chiwenga. For months, whispers of a brewing revolt within Zanu PF have circulated in Harare, with the war veterans’ legal challenge seen by many analysts as a proxy battle in the broader succession war between Mnangagwa and his deputy. By seeking to invalidate the Cabinet’s approval of the Bill, the veterans were essentially attempting to pull the rug from under the President’s feet before the legislation could be set in stone.
Justice Patel, in delivering the judgment, noted that the war veterans’ application failed to satisfy the stringent threshold required for the Constitutional Court to exercise its exclusive jurisdiction. Professor Lovemore Madhuku, the constitutional lawyer representing the veterans, explained the court’s reasoning to a scrum of journalists outside the court building.
“The Constitutional Court has said that although the President has the duties that we had indicated in the application, those duties are not specific enough to allow the Constitutional Court to exercise its exclusive jurisdiction,” Madhuku said. He further clarified that the court’s finding effectively directs the matter back to the lower courts. “What this means is that the application ought to be lodged in a lower court such as the High Court. The High Court can determine those issues and then it goes up to the Constitutional Court through the normal processes of appeals and so forth.”
The legal team representing the President and Attorney-General Virginia Mabhiza, led by Sylvester Hashiti, was visibly satisfied with the outcome. Hashiti told reporters that the applicants had failed to prove any wrongdoing. “They failed to establish anything that we have done wrong in terms of the law and therefore there have no cause of action and the matter was struck off the roll on merits,” he stated.
While the legal battle played out in the hushed halls of the ConCourt, a far more raucous scene had unfolded in Parliament just hours earlier. In the new, multi-million-dollar Parliament building in Mt Hampden, opposition legislators mounted a desperate, midnight rearguard action to slow the Bill’s progress. The sitting, which lasted until 12:22 AM on Wednesday, saw tempers flare as the government attempted to rush the Bill through its second reading.
Justice Minister Ziyambi Ziyambi had entered the chamber expecting a swift conclusion to the debate, noting that a record 120 members had already spoken. However, the opposition was in no mood for a quick exit. “I humbly want to know: are we closing the debate, because I thought we are continuing with the debate,” interjected Dangamvura MP Prosper Mutseyami on a point of order. “I and others are yet to debate.”
The ensuing debate was marked by passionate pleas and the eventual ejection of Marondera Central MP Caston Matewu. Matewu, who insisted on his right to speak for the full 20 minutes allotted by standing rules rather than the 10-minute limit imposed by the Deputy Speaker, was ordered out of the House after a heated exchange. Before his removal, Matewu delivered a blistering critique of the Bill, describing it as a “fundamental attempt to alter the relationship between the people of Zimbabwe and the State without first consulting Zimbabweans.”
“Clause 2 provides that we eliminate the direct popular election of the president and instead hand it over to the power of a joint sitting of parliament,” Matewu told the House. “Why should the people surrender a democratic right that we already possess? Why should the Zimbabwean voter lose the right to directly elect a president of their choice in this republic?”
The Bill at the centre of this storm, CAB3, proposes a series of sweeping changes that critics argue will dismantle the democratic gains of the 2013 Constitution. Most notably, it seeks to extend the presidential term from five to seven years and shift the election of the president from a direct popular vote to a parliamentary system. This move is seen by many as a strategy to ensure Mnangagwa’s continued grip on power beyond his current mandate, which is set to expire in 2028.
The opposition’s critique was not limited to the presidency. Ellen Shiriyedenga, the CCC proportional representation member for Harare Province, took the Bill apart clause by clause during the late-night session. She questioned whether the amendment would “deepen constitutional democracy or weaken it,” arguing that it threatened the core values of accountability.
On the issue of judicial appointments, Shiriyedenga warned that removing public interviews for lower court judges under Clause 14 would strip away transparency. “Courts are supposed to act as neutral guardians of the law,” she said. “Any changes in their appointment procedures giving the executive more influence affects the independence of the judiciary, which is contrary to Section 164 of our constitution, which is clear that the independence, impartiality and effectiveness of the courts are central to the rule of law and democratic governance.”
She also raised concerns about the proposed transfer of delimitation duties from the Zimbabwe Electoral Commission (ZEC) to a new commission appointed by the President. “What is exciting about this debate,” she observed, “is that even colleagues from the ruling party have complained about the conduct of the Zimbabwe Electoral Commission, which we as the opposition have been complaining about; in a way, we have been vindicated.”
The government’s justification for the term extension—that it is necessary to allow for the completion of long-term development projects—was met with derision from the opposition benches. Kadoma Central MP Miriam Mambipiri pointed to the Harare-Bulawayo road dualisation, a project commissioned in 2005 that remains unfinished. “If we were to allow the president who was there then to stay in power until that project ended, it simply means we would still be having the same president 25 years later,” she remarked.
Mambipiri’s rhetoric was particularly sharp, accusing the government of attempting to restore an “imperial presidency.” She told the House, “The constitutional amendments were fathered by the executive and are simply being midwifed here in Mt Hampden, far away from the people, and for that they must be rejected.”
Despite the opposition’s spirited resistance, the political reality in Zimbabwe suggests that CAB3 is almost certain to become law. With a two-thirds majority in the National Assembly and control over the Senate through traditional leaders and other proxies, Zanu PF has the numbers to override any parliamentary objection. The dismissal of the court challenges removes the last major legal hurdle, leaving the opposition with few options beyond public protests, which have already seen students at Midlands State University detained for distributing flyers.
The internal dynamics of Zanu PF remain the most unpredictable factor. While the “War Vets” challenge has been quelled in the apex court for now, the underlying tensions between the Mnangagwa and Chiwenga factions are unlikely to dissipate. Some reports have suggested that MPs loyal to Chiwenga might attempt to sabotage the Bill by denying the House a quorum, though no such public dissent has yet materialised.
For the war veterans who brought the case, the fight is not over. Professor Madhuku confirmed that his clients have already instructed him to file a fresh application in the High Court. “We have been given instructions by the applicants to file the matter at the High Court so that which can then determine those broad duties because they are not clear,” he said.
As the Bill moves toward a final vote, the debate continues to polarise the nation. To its supporters, CAB3 is a necessary technical correction to enhance governance and parliamentary oversight. To its detractors, it is a brazen power grab that threatens to turn the 2013 Constitution into a “sacred covenant” that has been unceremoniously torn up.
For now, the government holds the upper hand. Minister Ziyambi, acknowledging the unprecedented scale of the parliamentary debate, noted that over 200 members had participated—a record he believes will not be broken for a long time. But as the legal and political battles shift to new fronts, the question remains: at what cost to Zimbabwe’s fledgling democracy will this victory be won?