Harare – A legal challenge to potential constitutional changes that could extend President Emmerson Mnangagwa’s term in office is facing resistance from the Attorney-General’s office, which is seeking to have the case dismissed. The application, brought by six war veterans, centers on concerns that the proposed amendments – known as Constitutional Amendment No. 3 Bill – represent an attempt to circumvent term limits and consolidate power. The dispute highlights ongoing tensions within Zimbabwe’s political landscape and raises fundamental questions about the separation of powers and the rule of law.
The war veterans – Reuben Zulu, Godfrey Gurira, Shoorai Nyamangodo, Joseph Chinyangare, Digmore Knowledge Ndiya, and Joseph Chinguwa – argue that the move to amend the constitution is a direct violation of the country’s foundational principles, specifically the prohibition of self-extension of presidential terms. They are being represented by prominent constitutional lawyer Lovemore Madhuku, a figure well-known for his advocacy on constitutional matters in Zimbabwe.
Attorney-General Virginia Mabiza, in an opposing affidavit filed with the Constitutional Court (ConCourt), contends that the challenge is premature. She argues that given that the Constitutional Amendment No. 3 Bill has not yet been enacted into law, any legal challenge is speculative and lacks a concrete basis. Mabiza is representing both herself and President Mnangagwa in the matter, citing its focus on statutory interpretation and the absence of factual disputes. She urged the applicants to participate in parliamentary consultations regarding the proposed amendments, stating that they can challenge the constitutionality of the final product if their concerns are not addressed.
The Attorney-General further raised concerns about the court interfering with the legislative process, emphasizing the importance of respecting the separation of powers. “The legislative process must be allowed to grab its course,” she submitted, adding that the court should not “interfere with law-making processes as understood within the conspectus of separation of powers.” This argument reflects a common tension between the judiciary and the executive/legislative branches in many countries, particularly when constitutional matters are at stake.
However, Reuben Zulu, the lead applicant in the case, strongly refuted the claim that the challenge is premature. He argued that the issue extends beyond the future law itself and concerns the President’s current actions. According to Zulu’s submission, the President has already demonstrated a failure to uphold the constitution by actively supporting the advancement of the proposed amendments through the Executive branch. He contends that this constitutes a breach of section 328(7) of the Constitution, which prohibits presidential term extensions, and section 88(1), which emphasizes the accountability of the Executive to the people.
Zulu specifically alleges that Mnangagwa should have recused himself from the process due to the potential personal benefit he stands to gain from the amendments. He argues that the President’s involvement in pushing the proposal through Cabinet processes was improper and undermines the constitutional principles of impartiality and accountability. “What was impermissible was not some failure to police Parliament, but personal participation in advancing through Executive authority a scheme from which he stood to benefit,” Zulu stated.
Mabiza, however, disputed the assertion that the President has a constitutional obligation to assess the legality of proposed legislation. She maintained that such a function falls squarely within the purview of the courts. This position underscores the traditional role of the judiciary as the ultimate arbiter of constitutional matters.
Notably, President Mnangagwa has not yet filed a formal notice of opposition in the ConCourt case, a fact highlighted by Zulu as suggesting a lack of contest to the claims being made. He argued that the President’s silence implies acceptance of the relief sought by the applicants, which focuses on his conduct rather than the actions of Parliament.
The case arrives at a sensitive time for Zimbabwe, which has a history of contested elections and constitutional amendments aimed at consolidating presidential power. Reuters reported in May 2023 on similar concerns surrounding previous constitutional changes and their potential impact on democratic processes. The current challenge could set a significant precedent for the interpretation of presidential term limits and the role of the judiciary in safeguarding constitutional principles.
The proposed amendments are part of a broader pattern of constitutional revisions since Mnangagwa assumed office in 2017, following the ousting of Robert Mugabe. These changes have sparked debate about the government’s commitment to democratic reforms and the protection of fundamental rights. Critics argue that the amendments are designed to entrench the ruling ZANU-PF party’s control and limit political opposition.
The ConCourt’s decision in this case will have far-reaching implications for Zimbabwe’s political future. If the court rules in favor of the war veterans, it could invalidate the proposed amendments and reaffirm the importance of constitutional term limits. Conversely, if the court sides with the Attorney-General, it could pave the way for Mnangagwa to potentially extend his rule beyond the current constitutional limits.
The next step in the legal process is a hearing date yet to be announced by the Constitutional Court. The court will need to weigh the arguments presented by both sides and determine whether the challenge is premature or whether it raises legitimate constitutional concerns. Updates on the case will be available through official court channels and reported by credible news organizations.
This case underscores the ongoing struggle for constitutionalism and democratic governance in Zimbabwe. The outcome will be closely watched by both domestic and international observers, as it could shape the country’s political trajectory for years to approach. We encourage readers to share their thoughts and engage in respectful discussion about this important issue in the comments below.
