News / National
ConCourt to deliver judgment in Mnangagwa term extension challenge
6 hrs ago |
405 Views
Zimbabwe's Constitutional Court is expected to deliver judgment on Thursday in a closely watched case brought by a group of liberation war veterans seeking to stop proposed constitutional amendments they argue could pave the way for President Emmerson Mnangagwa to remain in office beyond his current term.
The matter was heard on May 20, with the court reserving judgment after arguments from both parties.
The applicants, represented by constitutional lawyer Lovemore Madhuku, approached the Constitutional Court under Section 167(2)(d) of the Constitution and Rule 32(1) of the Constitutional Court Rules, 2025, seeking an order declaring Constitutional Amendment Bill No. 3 invalid.
President Mnangagwa and Attorney-General Virginia Mabiza were cited as the first and second respondents respectively.
The application was filed by war veterans Reuben Zulu, Godfrey Gurira, Shoorai Nyamangodo, Joseph Chinyangare, Dogmore Knowledge Ndiya and Joseph Chinguwa.
The applicants argue that the President failed to fulfil constitutional obligations in relation to the proposed amendments and improperly participated in a process from which he stands to benefit.
According to the court papers, the war veterans contend that Mnangagwa breached Sections 90(1), 90(2)(b) and 196(2) of the Constitution by presiding over Cabinet discussions and participating in the approval of Constitutional Amendment Bill No. 3.
They argue that the President should not have been involved in deliberations concerning amendments that allegedly have the effect of extending his tenure in office.
In his founding affidavit, lead applicant Zulu accused Mnangagwa of chairing and directing Cabinet's consideration of what he described as a constitutional reform process intended to prolong the President's stay in office.
The challenge centres on concerns raised by critics of Constitutional Amendment Bill No. 3, who argue that some of its provisions could alter existing constitutional arrangements and potentially affect presidential term limits and governance structures.
Government, however, has consistently maintained that the proposed amendments are lawful and aimed at improving governance and the administration of public institutions.
The Constitutional Court's ruling is expected to provide clarity on whether the President's involvement in the legislative process was consistent with constitutional requirements and whether the challenge to the amendment process has legal merit.
The judgment is likely to have significant political and constitutional implications as Parliament continues to debate the controversial Constitutional Amendment Bill No. 3.
The matter was heard on May 20, with the court reserving judgment after arguments from both parties.
The applicants, represented by constitutional lawyer Lovemore Madhuku, approached the Constitutional Court under Section 167(2)(d) of the Constitution and Rule 32(1) of the Constitutional Court Rules, 2025, seeking an order declaring Constitutional Amendment Bill No. 3 invalid.
President Mnangagwa and Attorney-General Virginia Mabiza were cited as the first and second respondents respectively.
The application was filed by war veterans Reuben Zulu, Godfrey Gurira, Shoorai Nyamangodo, Joseph Chinyangare, Dogmore Knowledge Ndiya and Joseph Chinguwa.
The applicants argue that the President failed to fulfil constitutional obligations in relation to the proposed amendments and improperly participated in a process from which he stands to benefit.
According to the court papers, the war veterans contend that Mnangagwa breached Sections 90(1), 90(2)(b) and 196(2) of the Constitution by presiding over Cabinet discussions and participating in the approval of Constitutional Amendment Bill No. 3.
They argue that the President should not have been involved in deliberations concerning amendments that allegedly have the effect of extending his tenure in office.
In his founding affidavit, lead applicant Zulu accused Mnangagwa of chairing and directing Cabinet's consideration of what he described as a constitutional reform process intended to prolong the President's stay in office.
The challenge centres on concerns raised by critics of Constitutional Amendment Bill No. 3, who argue that some of its provisions could alter existing constitutional arrangements and potentially affect presidential term limits and governance structures.
Government, however, has consistently maintained that the proposed amendments are lawful and aimed at improving governance and the administration of public institutions.
The Constitutional Court's ruling is expected to provide clarity on whether the President's involvement in the legislative process was consistent with constitutional requirements and whether the challenge to the amendment process has legal merit.
The judgment is likely to have significant political and constitutional implications as Parliament continues to debate the controversial Constitutional Amendment Bill No. 3.
Source - NewsDay
Join the discussion
Loading comments…
