News / National
ConCourt strikes off Mnangagwa term extension challenge
12 hrs ago |
859 Views
The Constitutional Court has struck off the roll an application by six liberation war veterans seeking to block President Emmerson Mnangagwa from advancing the controversial Constitution of Zimbabwe Amendment Bill No. 3.
The application challenged Mnangagwa's involvement in Cabinet deliberations that approved the proposed constitutional amendments, arguing that he acted unlawfully by participating in a process from which he allegedly stood to benefit.
The applicants - Reuben Zulu, Godfrey Gurira, Shoorai Nyamangodo, Joseph Chinyangare, Digmore Knowledge Ndiya and Joseph Chinguwa - approached the Constitutional Court alleging that the President breached provisions of the Constitution by presiding over Cabinet discussions relating to the Bill.
Represented by constitutional law expert Lovemore Madhuku, the war veterans sought an order declaring the Cabinet deliberations null and void and preventing Mnangagwa from advancing the proposed amendments.
Central to their argument was the claim that the President violated Sections 90 and 196 of the Constitution by participating in discussions on reforms that could potentially affect presidential tenure arrangements.
The applicants further argued that the proposed amendments conflicted with Section 328(7) of the Constitution, which restricts constitutional changes that would extend the tenure of an incumbent office-holder.
Among the provisions that have generated the most public debate are proposals relating to presidential terms and changes to aspects of Zimbabwe's governance framework.
The court's decision to strike the matter off the roll effectively brings the application to an end in its current form, removing a significant legal obstacle facing the Bill as it progresses through Parliament.
The challenge emerged amid growing political and legal debate surrounding Constitutional Amendment Bill No. 3, which critics argue could fundamentally alter key constitutional safeguards, while supporters maintain it introduces reforms intended to improve governance and institutional efficiency.
Government has consistently defended the proposed amendments, arguing that they are aimed at strengthening state institutions and enhancing the effectiveness of governance structures.
The Bill is currently before Parliament and is expected to be put to a vote following the completion of debate in both houses.
With the ruling ZANU-PF holding a two-thirds majority in Parliament, political analysts widely expect the legislation to secure the support required for constitutional amendments.
However, debate continues among legal experts and civil society groups over whether some of the proposed changes require approval through a national referendum, a position disputed by government.
The Constitutional Court's ruling comes at a critical stage in the legislative process as lawmakers continue deliberations on one of the most consequential constitutional reform proposals since the adoption of the 2013 Constitution.
The application challenged Mnangagwa's involvement in Cabinet deliberations that approved the proposed constitutional amendments, arguing that he acted unlawfully by participating in a process from which he allegedly stood to benefit.
The applicants - Reuben Zulu, Godfrey Gurira, Shoorai Nyamangodo, Joseph Chinyangare, Digmore Knowledge Ndiya and Joseph Chinguwa - approached the Constitutional Court alleging that the President breached provisions of the Constitution by presiding over Cabinet discussions relating to the Bill.
Represented by constitutional law expert Lovemore Madhuku, the war veterans sought an order declaring the Cabinet deliberations null and void and preventing Mnangagwa from advancing the proposed amendments.
Central to their argument was the claim that the President violated Sections 90 and 196 of the Constitution by participating in discussions on reforms that could potentially affect presidential tenure arrangements.
The applicants further argued that the proposed amendments conflicted with Section 328(7) of the Constitution, which restricts constitutional changes that would extend the tenure of an incumbent office-holder.
Among the provisions that have generated the most public debate are proposals relating to presidential terms and changes to aspects of Zimbabwe's governance framework.
The challenge emerged amid growing political and legal debate surrounding Constitutional Amendment Bill No. 3, which critics argue could fundamentally alter key constitutional safeguards, while supporters maintain it introduces reforms intended to improve governance and institutional efficiency.
Government has consistently defended the proposed amendments, arguing that they are aimed at strengthening state institutions and enhancing the effectiveness of governance structures.
The Bill is currently before Parliament and is expected to be put to a vote following the completion of debate in both houses.
With the ruling ZANU-PF holding a two-thirds majority in Parliament, political analysts widely expect the legislation to secure the support required for constitutional amendments.
However, debate continues among legal experts and civil society groups over whether some of the proposed changes require approval through a national referendum, a position disputed by government.
The Constitutional Court's ruling comes at a critical stage in the legislative process as lawmakers continue deliberations on one of the most consequential constitutional reform proposals since the adoption of the 2013 Constitution.
Source - BusinessDaily
Join the discussion
Loading comments…
