ConCourt reserves judgment in challenge to Majome's reassignment

The Constitutional Court has reserved judgment in a case challenging President Emmerson Mnangagwa's decision to reassign former Zimbabwe Human Rights Commission (ZHRC) chairperson Fungayi Jessie Majome to the Public Service Commission (PSC).

Political activist Allan Chipoyi is seeking a declaration that the President's decision was unconstitutional, arguing that the reassignment amounted to an unlawful removal of Majome from office without following the procedures prescribed by the Constitution.

Chipoyi, represented by advocates Eric Matinenga, Doug Coltart of the Zimbabwe Lawyers for Human Rights (ZLHR) and Tazorora Musarurwa, appeared before a full Constitutional Court bench led by Chief Justice Elizabeth Gwaunza. Advocate Silvester Hashiti represented President Mnangagwa.

The bench reserved judgment after hearing submissions from both parties.

In his application, filed in terms of Section 167(2)(d) of the Constitution, Chipoyi argues that the Constitutional Court has exclusive jurisdiction to determine whether the President has failed to fulfil a constitutional obligation.

He contends that the Constitution does not recognise "reassignment" as a lawful mechanism for removing or interrupting the tenure of members of independent constitutional commissions.

According to the application, members of independent commissions established under Chapter 12 of the Constitution may only be removed from office through procedures outlined in Sections 237(3) and 187, which require an investigation by an independent tribunal and a recommendation before removal can take place.

Chipoyi argues that no such tribunal was established before Majome was reassigned to the Public Service Commission.

He is seeking an order declaring that by removing Majome under the guise of a reassignment, the President failed to fulfil his constitutional obligations under Sections 90(1), 187(8) and 237(3) of the Constitution.

The application also seeks an order reinstating Majome to the office of ZHRC chairperson and prohibiting the President or anyone acting on his behalf from interfering with the tenure of commissioners except in accordance with the Constitution.

Chipoyi further argues that the President's actions violated Section 90(1), which requires the Head of State to uphold, defend, obey and respect the Constitution.

He maintains that, as a Zimbabwean citizen, he has standing to bring the application because the independence of constitutional commissions exists to safeguard the rights and interests of the public.

"The unlawful interference with the tenure and independence of Majome erodes the constitutionally guaranteed independence of members of Chapter 12 institutions," Chipoyi argues in his court papers.

According to the application, Majome was appointed chairperson of the Zimbabwe Human Rights Commission on 20 March 2024.

The legal challenge notes that on 7 April 2026, the commission issued a public statement expressing concern over the public consultation process for the Constitution of Zimbabwe Amendment (No. 3) Bill. The statement cited limited consultation venues, alleged intimidation of dissenting voices and what the commission described as controlled public participation.

Three days later, on 10 April 2026, Chief Secretary to the President and Cabinet Martin Rushwaya announced that Majome had been reassigned to serve as a commissioner in the Public Service Commission with immediate effect.

Chipoyi argues that the timing of the decision raises questions about its motivation.

"The temporal proximity and political context demonstrate that this action was not a routine administrative deployment, but a punitive, retaliatory measure designed to purge a dissenting constitutional voice from an independent commission," the application states.

He further argues that Majome neither resigned nor was found guilty of misconduct, incompetence or any other ground that would justify her removal under the Constitution, and that no reasons were publicly provided for the reassignment.

The application maintains that by bypassing the constitutional tribunal process governing the removal of commissioners, the President failed to comply with the safeguards designed to protect the independence of Zimbabwe's constitutional commissions.

The Constitutional Court's reserved judgment is expected to determine whether the President acted within the Constitution when reassigning Majome and could provide important guidance on the security of tenure enjoyed by members of Zimbabwe's independent constitutional commissions.