News / National
Chibaya seeks to halt CAB3 Parliamentary proceedings
17 Apr 2026 at 17:30hrs |
0 Views
Pro-democracy campaigner Allan Chipoyi and former Mkoba North MP Amos Chibaya have approached the High Court on an urgent basis seeking to stop Parliament from proceeding with key stages of the Constitution of Zimbabwe Amendment Bill (No. 3), 2026.
The pair is seeking an interdict against Parliament of Zimbabwe and Speaker Jacob Mudenda, barring them from advancing the Bill to the tabling of public consultation reports and its Second Reading.
According to the Zimbabwe Lawyers for Human Rights (Zimbabwe Lawyers for Human Rights), the applicants are also asking the court to compel Parliament to conduct fresh, safe and inclusive public hearings on the proposed constitutional changes.
Represented by lawyer Obey Shava of ZLHR, Chipoyi and Chibaya argue that public hearings conducted between 30 March and 2 April 2026 were procedurally flawed and failed to meet constitutional standards of fairness and inclusivity.
They contend that the process violated their constitutional right to freedom of expression under Section 61 of the Constitution and should therefore be declared null and void "ab initio."
The applicants further argue that the shortcomings in the consultation process undermine the legitimacy of the legislative process, warranting judicial intervention before Parliament proceeds to the next stages of the Bill.
The matter comes amid ongoing national debate over the proposed constitutional amendments, which have drawn both political support and criticism from civil society actors over issues of procedure, consultation, and substance.
The pair is seeking an interdict against Parliament of Zimbabwe and Speaker Jacob Mudenda, barring them from advancing the Bill to the tabling of public consultation reports and its Second Reading.
According to the Zimbabwe Lawyers for Human Rights (Zimbabwe Lawyers for Human Rights), the applicants are also asking the court to compel Parliament to conduct fresh, safe and inclusive public hearings on the proposed constitutional changes.
They contend that the process violated their constitutional right to freedom of expression under Section 61 of the Constitution and should therefore be declared null and void "ab initio."
The applicants further argue that the shortcomings in the consultation process undermine the legitimacy of the legislative process, warranting judicial intervention before Parliament proceeds to the next stages of the Bill.
The matter comes amid ongoing national debate over the proposed constitutional amendments, which have drawn both political support and criticism from civil society actors over issues of procedure, consultation, and substance.
Source - Pindula
Join the discussion
Loading comments…