STAFF REPORTER
Attorney-General Virginia Mabiza has hit back at the Movement for Democratic Change (MDC)’s Constitutional Court challenge against Constitutional Amendment Act No. 3 (CAA3), insisting that the law does not take away Zimbabweans’ right to vote.
Mabiza argues that the right to vote like any other constitutionally protected right iis not absolute and must be exercised in accordance with the Constitution and other relevant laws.
The MDC has approached the Constitutional Court challenging several provisions of CAA3, particularly those relating to citizens’ voting rights and the election of the President.
Mabiza filed the opposing affidavit on behalf of President Emmerson Mnangagwa and Justice, Legal and Parliamentary Affairs Minister Ziyambi Ziyambi, defending the government’s position against the challenge.
She rejected the MDC’s argument that the amendment undermines citizens’ right to participate in elections, arguing that voting rights remain protected under the Constitution.
“While it is accepted that prior Presidential elections were by popular suffrage, the right to vote and to popular suffrage were not absolute but subjected to the caveat “in accordance with the Constitution and other relevant laws”.
“The provisions of the Amendment Act do not negate this right in any form or shape,” she said.
Mabiza also dismissed claims that CAA3 has disenfranchised voters, maintaining that the relevant constitutional provision has neither been amended nor created a different mechanism for electing the President.
“It is denied that there is any disenfranchisement. The provisions of section 67 (3) were never absolute, have not been amended and made no provision for the election of the President by popular suffrage,” she said.
She further challenged the MDC’s application on procedural grounds, arguing that the opposition party was still referring to the legislation as a Bill despite it having already been passed into law.
“Prior to relating to the merits of the Application, it must be noted from the relief sought and the contents of the Founding Affidavit that the Applicant still makes reference to a Bill and seeks relief centred on a Bill.
“There is no longer a Bill but an ACT which has been duly passed. The Application and the relief sought are resultantly incompetent and must be struck off.”
Mabiza also rejected allegations that President Mnangagwa breached his constitutional duties by assenting to CAA3.
“It is denied that there has been a failure to uphold or exercise these duties in accordance with the law,” she said.
