HARARE – Opponents of Constitution of Zimbabwe Amendment Bill (No. 3) suffered a major setback on Wednesday after the Constitutional Court threw out two separate legal challenges aimed at stopping President Emmerson Mnangagwa and parliament from advancing the controversial constitutional changes.
A full Constitutional Court bench chaired by Justice Bharat Patel dismissed an application by six liberation war veterans challenging Mnangagwa’s involvement in the bill’s approval process and also rejected a separate bid by former legislator Prince Dubeko Sibanda seeking to halt parliamentary proceedings on the proposed amendments.
The court ruled that the war veterans’ application was fatally defective as it failed to meet critical legal requirements, while Sibanda’s challenge was dismissed on the grounds that it was premature.
The judgment represents the latest legal victory for the government, which seeks major changes to Zimbabwe’s governance framework, including extending presidential terms from five to seven years and altering the presidential election system.
Lawyer Sylvester Hashiti, representing Mnangagwa and Attorney-General Virginia Mabhiza, said the applicants had failed to establish any wrongdoing.
“They failed to establish anything that we have done wrong in terms of the law and therefore they have no cause of action and the matter was struck off the roll on merits,” Hashiti said after the ruling.
The war veterans had accused Mnangagwa of violating the constitution by presiding over cabinet discussions that approved the draft legislation despite having a personal interest in the proposed changes.
Their application argued that the president breached constitutional duties requiring him to uphold the constitution and avoid conflicts between personal interests and public responsibilities.
Professor Lovemore Madhuku, who represented the applicants, acknowledged that the Constitutional Court had declined to exercise its jurisdiction over the matter.
“The Constitutional Court has said it will not entertain the matter on the basis that, although the president has duties we have indicated, those duties are not specific enough to allow the Constitutional Court to exercise its jurisdiction,” Madhuku said.
He said the court’s position was that the dispute should first be determined by the High Court.
“This means that the application ought to have been brought before a lower court, that is the High Court, to determine those roles and then it goes up to the Constitutional Court through the normal processes,” he said.
Despite the setback, Madhuku said the legal fight against the proposed constitutional changes was far from over.
“We have been given instructions by the applicants to file the matter at the High Court so that it can then determine those broad duties because they are not clear,” he said.
On the Sibanda application, Madhuku said they were ready to refile it once MPs vote to pass the amendments, which could be as early as Friday.
Several cases to stop the Bill are currently before the courts, including an application brought by the rights activist Youngerson Matete who argues that the planned amendments must be subjected to a referendum.
Source: ZimLive
The post Constitutional amendment opponents suffer ConCourt double blow appeared first on The Zimbabwe Mail.