…government says constitutional changes have passed all legal stages
STAFF REPORTER
EFFORTS to reverse the Constitution of Zimbabwe Amendment (No. 3) Act, 2026 (CAA3) are a daydream, with the government insisting that implementation of the controversial constitutional changes is already under way after the amendment completed all constitutionally prescribed stages.
With judges and senators appointed under the new constitutional framework already sworn in, the government says there is no legal basis for attempts to overturn the amendment through repeated court challenges.
The latest challenge by six war veterans seeking to contest the presidential electoral system introduced under CAA3 has further intensified the legal battle, with the government arguing that the applicants are attempting to bypass established judicial procedures.
In an opposing affidavit filed by President Emmerson Mnangagwa, Justice, Legal and Parliamentary Affairs Minister Ziyambi Ziyambi and Attorney-General Virginia Mabiza, the respondents dismissed the latest application, maintaining that the amendment had already completed all the necessary legislative and constitutional processes.
Represented by lawyer Sylvester Hashiti, the respondents argued that the amendment had passed through all the required stages of enactment, making further challenges to its validity legally untenable.
“The Constitutional Amendment Bill No. 3 has now passed all legally prescribed stages and requirements for its enactment. Accordingly, any subsequent challenge to its validity is legally untenable and ought to be dismissed.”
The war veterans are challenging the presidential electoral system introduced under CAA3, which provides for the election of the President by Parliament rather than through a direct popular vote.
However, the respondents maintain that the applicants have failed to demonstrate why they should be granted direct access to the Constitutional Court instead of first approaching the High Court.
The Constitutional Court has reserved judgment in the application.
Addressing the court, Hashiti said the applicants had failed to comply with procedural requirements for direct access and had not established exceptional circumstances justifying the bypassing of the High Court.
“So, today we are arguing an application for direct access, where the war veterans are seeking leave from the court to approach it, to challenge the amendments, in particular the issues to do with the direct election of the President,” Hashiti said.
“Procedurally, the applicants did not comply with the rules, did not comply with the requirements required in an appeal of this nature.
“Secondly, the applicants did not set out on what basis they were approaching the court.”
He also questioned the applicants’ legal standing, arguing that they had not provided sufficient evidence to establish their interest in bringing the matter directly before the apex court.
“They did not prove their voters, they did not prove that they are presidential candidates, they did not prove any interest, even a public interest, on why they were approaching the court,” he said.
Hashiti further argued that the applicants had failed to demonstrate why their case deserved exceptional treatment by the Constitutional Court instead of following the ordinary judicial process.
“We also referred the court to the issue that on the substance of the application itself, there was no case set out as to why exceptionally the war veterans must come to the Constitutional Court and not the High Court,” he said.
“They should have gone to the High Court as a court of first instance, because that is the court which deals with matters as a first instance.”
The respondents also challenged the decision to cite Mnangagwa as a respondent, arguing that the President had no relevant legal interest in the dispute because his role in the enactment process had already been completed.
“The President has no interest, there is no justification for involving him in these things, because his function was already concluded and no one has challenged that the President was wrong in ascending to the throne.”
“So therefore the issues to do with the President are not necessary, they are simply for other reasons, but legally they are unnecessary.”
The government maintains that CAA3 has crossed the constitutional and legislative hurdles required for its enactment and is now being implemented, arguing that attempts to reverse the changes cannot succeed without meeting the established legal requirements.
With key appointments under the new framework already completed, the government is pressing ahead with implementation while insisting that litigants seeking to challenge the amendment must follow the prescribed judicial procedures.
