Hopewell Chin’ono on Adv Method Ndlovu’s withdrawal from the Jonathan Moyo orchestrated Constitutional Court case:

Hopewell Chin’ono (Photo: Columbus Mavhunga/VOA)

In a letter dated 5 March 2026, Ndlovu informed Mr Sithole that he was withdrawing with immediate effect from representing the applicants in proceedings before the Constitutional Court. The letter, written on behalf of the Apex Legal Group of Advocates, cites a breakdown in trust, unpaid legal fees, and reputational attacks linked to the litigation.

The “Mr Sithole” referred to in the letter is Nqobani Sithole, a Zimbabwean lawyer who has been representing Mbuso Fuzwayo and the organisation Ibhetshu LikaZulu in the Constitutional Court case related to the attempt to challenge or clarify the legality of extending President Emmerson Mnangagwa’s term to 2030.

Ndlovu states that from the outset he had warned both Mr Sithole and Professor Jonathan Moyo, whom he describes as the principal architect of the case, that the matter carried significant reputational risks.

Because of those risks, he says, he required clear commitments and undertakings before agreeing to act.

According to the advocate, those assurances were given but were not honoured. He says that after the Constitutional Court granted direct access in the matter, he was informed that payment could not be made, despite his understanding that funds had already been received in connection with the case.

The dispute appears to have escalated further after public allegations were made against him by Professor Moyo. In the letter, Ndlovu describes the accusations as baseless and says they have caused reputational harm.
He characterises the attacks as choreographed and says the developments signalled a deterioration in the professional relationship.

“As a result,” he writes, “I cannot continue to serve in circumstances in which I am treated as expendable or as an instrument of convenience.”

The withdrawal raises questions about the future direction of the Constitutional Court case, which had already drawn interest because of its political implications and the prominent figures associated with it.
Legal withdrawals of this nature are unusual in high profile constitutional litigation, particularly after a case has already secured direct access to the country’s highest court on constitutional matters.

Ndlovu concludes that he is withdrawing in order to protect his professional integrity and dignity.

The development introduces uncertainty into the proceedings and will force the applicants to secure new legal representation at a critical stage of the case. It also highlights growing tensions among some of the actors involved in politically sensitive litigation in Zimbabwe, where legal battles often intersect with wider political rivalries and public commentary.

The case became very controversial when certain people from civil society supported it, whether knowingly or unknowingly, that it was being used toi open the door for the 2030 project to succeed. And now this letter has opened a Pandora’s box, making it clear that the case had actually been used for that.