Zimbabwe’s Constitutional Court has reserved judgment on a bid by six liberation war veterans to challenge the Constitution of Zimbabwe Amendment (No. 3) Act, 2026, opening a fresh legal battle over President Emmerson Mnangagwa’s political future and the country’s electoral system.
The War Veterans are asking the Constitutional Court to allow them to bring the case directly before the country’s highest court instead of starting in the High Court. Their lawyers say the case raises issues of exceptional national importance, particularly the removal of the public’s direct right to elect the President.
The application was heard in Harare on Tuesday by a three-judge panel headed by Deputy Chief Justice Paddington Garwe, sitting with Justices Rita Makarau and Chinembiri Bhunu. No date was given for the judgment.
At the centre of the dispute is the change made by Amendment No. 3, which replaces the direct election of the President by voters with a system in which the President is elected by members of Parliament sitting jointly as the Senate and the National Assembly. A candidate must secure more than half of the valid votes cast.
Professor Lovemore Madhuku who is representing the veterans, said the amendment could not remove the people’s direct presidential vote without a referendum. He said the fact that Chapter Four, which contains the Declaration of Rights, had not been expressly amended did not settle the matter because the changes elsewhere in the Constitution affected rights protected under that chapter.
“The matter which we had brought which we want to be determined by this court is that you cannot take away the right of ordinary citizens to vote directly for the president without a referendum,” Madhuku said.
He added: “So even if you have not changed Chapter 4, which is the Bill of Rights, but you do things outside the Bill of Rights which actually affects things in the Bill of Rights, then in that case you have affected the Bill of Rights and you need a referendum.”
The government opposed the request for direct access. Advocate Sylvester Hashiti, representing Mnangagwa, Justice Minister Ziyambi Ziyambi and Attorney-General Virginia Mabhiza, argued that the applicants had failed to meet the procedural requirements for such an application and should first approach the High Court.
Hashiti also challenged the applicants’ standing, saying they had not shown that they were registered voters, presidential candidates or had another sufficient interest in the case. He questioned why the President had been joined as a respondent, arguing that his role in assenting to the law had already been completed.
The immediate question before the Constitutional Court is therefore whether the veterans will be allowed to bypass the High Court. If direct access is granted, the substance of the challenge will go before a full bench of the Constitutional Court. If it is refused, Madhuku has said the applicants will continue through the High Court.
“It clearly would be a disappointing result,” Madhuku said. “We are saying to the judges this is a matter you ought to hear yourselves. Let’s not waste time going to the High Court because if the High Court rules in our favour, the ruling would not take effect until confirmed by the ConCourt.”
He compared the application to a football match at half-time, saying a decision to grant direct access would amount to an early victory for the challengers. “If they allow us direct access, it would be a very big victory,” he said.
The case is one of several legal challenges now aimed at Amendment No. 3. A separate matter brought by former opposition legislator for Binga North, Prince Dubeko Sibanda, is scheduled for a full Constitutional Court hearing on 30 September. Other cases have been filed by the MDC under its president, Douglas Mwonzora, the National Constitutional Assembly and individuals represented by former Finance Minister Tendai Biti, with Advocate Lewis Uriri involved in the litigation.
The different cases attack different parts of the amendment. Some focus on the removal of direct presidential elections. Others challenge the extension of presidential and parliamentary terms, the way the Bill moved through Parliament, and changes that were introduced during the legislative process but were not included in the original public consultation.
Constitutional Amendment Bill No. 3 was approved after the National Assembly adopted Senate amendments by 226 votes to 41 on 30 June. Mnangagwa signed it into law in July. Before that, opponents had already warned that the process was moving too quickly and that the public hearings did not provide enough time or space for meaningful participation.
Public hearings were held from 30 March to 2 April after the Bill was gazetted in February. Critics of the process said the hearings were organised by district rather than constituency, with many districts receiving only one meeting lasting less than three hours. They argued that the consultation period required by the Constitution had effectively been compressed into a few days of meetings across the country.
The hearings also took place against a backdrop of intimidation and violence. Madhuku and activists linked to the National Constitutional Assembly were attacked at a meeting in March. Amnesty International called for the authorities to protect freedom of expression and peaceful assembly, warning that participants should be able to speak without fear of intimidation, harassment, assault or arrest.
The violence deepened the dispute over whether the consultation process had been genuine. Opposition figures announced boycotts, while human rights monitors raised concerns about intimidation and exclusion at some meetings. Those events are now part of the wider background to legal arguments that Parliament failed to follow the constitutional safeguards required when changing the country’s supreme law.
The Act does more than alter the way the President is chosen. It extends the terms of the President, Parliament, the Senate and the National Council of Chiefs from five years to seven years. The change extends Mnangagwa’s current term to 2030, although he began his second and final term under the five-year system established by the 2013 Constitution.
The Act also expands the Senate from 80 to 90 members by allowing the President to appoint ten additional senators on the basis of professional skills and competence. It transfers voter registration and the preparation and maintenance of the voters’ roll from the Zimbabwe Electoral Commission to the Registrar-General. It also establishes a separate Delimitation Commission to manage electoral boundaries.
Other provisions alter the appointment of judges by removing public interviews and giving the President the power to appoint the Chief Justice, Deputy Chief Justice and other judges after consultation with the Judicial Service Commission. The changes also reshape independent institutions and local authority representation.
The legal challenge to the presidential election model is based on the argument that the amendment has indirectly changed a protected political right. Section 67 of the Constitution gives citizens political rights, including the right to vote freely in elections. Section 328 sets out special procedures for changing entrenched provisions and requires a referendum where the relevant constitutional protections are affected.
The challengers say Parliament could not avoid that requirement simply by changing the electoral provisions rather than rewriting the Bill of Rights in express terms. They argue that replacing a national vote with a parliamentary vote changes how citizens exercise their political rights and therefore required approval through a referendum.
The government’s position is that the amendment was lawfully passed by the required parliamentary majority and signed by the President. It has also argued that the applicants should follow the ordinary court process rather than seek direct access to the apex court.
For Mnangagwa and his Government, the court cases now create a continuing legal contest around a law that has already been signed and gazetted. A successful challenge could remove or suspend key parts of the new system and force Parliament to reconsider the presidential election model, the extended terms or both. It could also reopen questions about the procedure used to pass the Act.
A refusal to hear the veterans’ case directly would not end the dispute. It would send the applicants to the High Court, while the other cases continue on their own legal tracks. Madhuku has made clear that the challengers intend to keep pursuing the matter, and the scheduled hearings in the coming days will bring several of the amendment’s most disputed provisions before the courts.