Timba hails Constitutional Court's restraint, criticises Executive over amendments

HARARE - Defend the Constitution Platform convenor Senator Jameson Z. Timba has welcomed what he described as the Constitutional Court's exercise of constitutional restraint in handling two applications challenging amendments enacted in July, while accusing the Executive of attempting to treat the contested changes as a settled matter.

In a statement issued on Thursday, Timba said the postponement of proceedings from November 11 to November 18, following concerns over the participation of judges appointed under the disputed provisions, demonstrated the importance of judicial impartiality, procedural fairness and constitutional supremacy.

He said it was particularly significant that, according to the applicants' legal representatives, the Court itself had raised questions about whether judges appointed under the contested amendments should participate in determining their constitutionality.

"This is institutional caution worthy of commendation," Timba said.

He contrasted the Court's approach with that of President Emmerson Mnangagwa's administration, which he accused of implementing the amendments in a manner intended to create the impression that their legality was beyond question.

"The legislation was signed into law and appointments made under provisions whose constitutional validity remained open to challenge," he said.

"Yet the very appointments made under the contested legislation have now raised questions requiring the Court's attention before the substantive challenges can proceed."

Timba argued that the developments illustrated the importance of constitutional restraint, warning that exercising political power without sufficient regard for constitutional safeguards could create complications for institutions entrusted with upholding the Constitution.

He maintained that parliamentary approval and presidential assent did not shield legislation from constitutional scrutiny.

According to Timba, neither a parliamentary majority nor presidential assent could remedy a constitutional defect if one were ultimately established by a competent court.

He said the applicants had raised fundamental questions concerning constitutional amendment procedures, public participation and the extension of elected mandates for the benefit of incumbent officeholders.

These issues, he argued, deserved independent judicial determination without political interference.

Timba acknowledged that the Constitutional Court had not yet ruled on the merits of the applications, stressing that the postponement should not be interpreted as a victory for either side.

Nevertheless, he commended the Court for paying attention to the integrity of the judicial process.

"An independent judiciary must be free to examine the constitutionality of decisions taken by Parliament and the Executive, regardless of their political significance," he said.

"The Court must neither be pressured to validate political decisions nor to reach conclusions preferred by those challenging them. Its duty is to the Constitution."

Timba urged the Executive to recognise that constitutional restraint was not a sign of weakness but an obligation arising from the limits placed on political power in a constitutional democracy.

He said the Defend the Constitution Platform had consistently maintained that defending the Constitution was not about who governed Zimbabwe, but how the country was governed.

Constitutional rules, he added, must apply equally to everyone, regardless of political affiliation or position.

Timba described the two applications as public interest litigation involving questions whose resolution would have implications for all Zimbabweans.

He encouraged citizens to follow the proceedings peacefully and respectfully while allowing the Constitutional Court to discharge its responsibilities independently.

"Political power may create the impression of finality, but only constitutional compliance can establish legality. The Executive may consider a matter politically settled. That does not make it constitutionally settled," Timba said.

He expressed confidence that the Court would continue to uphold constitutional principles when proceedings resume on November 18.

"The Constitution is not an inconvenience to political power. It is the source and limit of that power," he said.