HARARE – Zimbabwe’s Constitutional Court has dismissed an application seeking direct access to challenge the constitutionality of a ZANU PF conference resolution that critics argued could pave the way for extending President Emmerson Mnangagwa’s tenure beyond the current constitutional limits.
In a unanimous judgment, Deputy Chief Justice Paddington Garwe, sitting with Justices Ben Hlatshwayo and Bharat Patel, ruled that the applicants had failed to satisfy the legal requirements for bringing the matter directly before the country’s highest constitutional court.
The application was filed by citizens Moreprecision Muzadzi and Pardon Gambakwe under Section 167(5) of the Constitution. They argued that a resolution adopted during ZANU PF’s National People’s Conference in Mutare in October 2025 threatened constitutional guarantees of regular elections and presidential term limits by proposing an extension of the presidential term from five to seven years.
The applicants further alleged that President Mnangagwa had failed to uphold his constitutional oath by not publicly distancing himself from the party resolution.
However, the Constitutional Court held that the application was procedurally defective and that the applicants had not demonstrated why the matter should bypass the High Court, which shares jurisdiction over constitutional disputes.
“The application is not properly constituted for adjudication,” Justice Garwe said, adding that merely alleging a constitutional violation does not automatically entitle litigants to direct access to the Constitutional Court.
The judges also found that the dispute was premature because no Constitutional Amendment Bill proposing changes to presidential term limits has been introduced in Parliament.
According to the judgment, the court was being asked to rule on a political party resolution rather than an enacted law or an active legislative process.
“What the applicants invite this Court to determine is the constitutionality of a possible future legislative process, contained in a political party resolution, which may or may not occur,” the judgment stated.
“Such a dispute remains eminently speculative and hypothetical. It is not justiciable.”
The court reaffirmed the legal principle of constitutional avoidance, under which courts generally decline to determine abstract or hypothetical constitutional questions until an actual legal dispute has crystallised.
It also emphasised that granting direct access to the Constitutional Court is an exceptional remedy reserved for cases where the interests of justice clearly require litigants to bypass lower courts.
Having concluded that the applicants had failed to establish both the procedural requirements for direct access and the existence of a justiciable constitutional dispute, the court dismissed the application. No order was made as to costs, consistent with the court’s usual approach in constitutional litigation.
The ruling leaves unresolved the wider political debate over possible constitutional reforms relating to the presidency. Any proposal to amend presidential term provisions would still need to follow Zimbabwe’s constitutional amendment process, including parliamentary consideration and any other constitutional requirements before taking legal effect.
The post ConCourt dismisses challenge over ZANU PF conference resolution on presidential term limits appeared first on The Zimbabwe Mail.
