Mnangagwa facing an imminent legal challenge

Zimbabwean President Emmerson Mnangagwa is facing an imminent legal challenge following his decision to reassign Jessie Majome from her position as chairperson of the Zimbabwe Human Rights Commission to the Public Service Commission (PSC), a move critics say amounts to an unconstitutional removal from office.

The decision has triggered widespread criticism from legal practitioners, civil society actors, and opposition voices, who argue that the reassignment undermines the independence of constitutional oversight bodies.

Majome's reassignment came just days after the ZHRC publicly criticised provisions of the proposed Constitutional Amendment Bill No. 3, which seeks to introduce sweeping changes to Zimbabwe's governance system, including extending presidential and parliamentary terms from five to seven years and restructuring key electoral institutions.

During her final briefing as ZHRC chair, Majome highlighted what she described as an increasingly hostile environment for dissent, alleging that citizens opposing the constitutional amendments were facing intimidation, restricted access to public consultations, and other forms of pressure.

The timing of her removal has raised concerns that it may have been a retaliatory measure linked to the commission's public stance on the bill.

The government has defended the move, citing Section 202(1)(b) of the Constitution as the legal basis for the reassignment. However, leading constitutional lawyers strongly dispute this interpretation.

Prominent constitutional law expert Lovemore Madhuku said he is preparing a court challenge and has already received widespread public interest in joining the case.

"The president has no power to do that. It's null and void," Madhuku said, arguing that independent commission office-bearers cannot simply be reassigned as part of executive restructuring.

He further said the concept of "reassignment" does not exist in law when dealing with constitutional commissions, insisting that such actions effectively amount to removal without due process.

Senior lawyer David Coltart also condemned the decision, describing it as unlawful and suggesting it may constitute punishment for the ZHRC's criticism of the constitutional amendment process.

Constitutional lawyer Thabani Mpofu added that the move appears to contravene Section 237 of the Constitution, which sets out strict procedures for the removal of members of independent commissions, including the requirement for a formal tribunal in cases of alleged misconduct.

Mpofu argued that no such process was followed, making the reassignment legally indefensible.

As preparations for litigation intensify, the case is emerging as a major constitutional test, with potential implications for the independence of oversight institutions and the limits of executive authority in Zimbabwe.

Observers say the outcome could set a precedent on how far the executive can go in restructuring or interfering with constitutionally protected bodies in the future.