War vets hit Mnangagwa again

Published: 7 hours ago

A group of war veterans has launched a fresh Constitutional Court challenge against the controversial Constitution of Zimbabwe Amendment Bill (No. 3), intensifying efforts to block proposed changes that could extend President Emmerson Mnangagwa's tenure and alter the country's electoral framework.

The latest application, the third legal action brought by the ex-combatants against the proposed amendments, comes as Parliament continues debating the Bill, which contains provisions that critics argue could allow the 83-year-old President to remain in office until 2030.

Represented by constitutional lawyer Lovemore Madhuku, the applicants are challenging several key aspects of the proposed legislation, including the extension of presidential terms from five to seven years and proposals to replace direct presidential elections with a parliamentary voting system.

At the centre of the challenge is an allegation that President Mnangagwa breached constitutional obligations by presiding over the Cabinet meeting that approved the draft Bill despite allegedly standing to benefit from its provisions.

The applicants contend that such conduct violated Sections 90 and 196 of the Constitution, which outline standards of conduct for public officials and the principles governing public administration.

The court application also relies heavily on Section 328(7) of the Constitution, which prohibits constitutional amendments extending term limits from directly benefiting an incumbent officeholder.

In addition to challenging the proposed extension of presidential tenure, the war veterans argue that provisions seeking to have future presidents elected by Parliament rather than through direct popular vote would undermine citizens' political rights and democratic participation.

The applicants are seeking an order declaring Cabinet's approval of Constitutional Amendment Bill No. 3 null and void, as well as an interdict preventing Mnangagwa from signing the legislation into law should it pass through Parliament.

The latest application was filed by war veterans together with Mike Matanga, who says the action is being taken in the public interest after the Executive and Legislature allegedly ignored calls for a national referendum on the proposed constitutional changes.

According to the application, more than 500 war veterans oppose the enactment of Clauses 3, 4 and 9 of the Bill without first obtaining approval through a referendum.

"The 50 war veterans who signed the petition are those that were quickly available in Harare to sign it," the court papers state.

The applicants argue that the disputed clauses can only be lawfully enacted through a national referendum in terms of Sections 328(6) and 328(9) of the Constitution.

"Regardless of the legal position above, both the Executive and the Legislature remain adamant about enacting the mentioned clauses despite several efforts made by concerned war veterans seeking a national referendum," the application states.

In his founding affidavit, Matanga alleges that Justice, Legal and Parliamentary Affairs Minister Ziyambi Ziyambi publicly rejected demands for a referendum following public consultation hearings on the Bill.

The applicants further claim that the minister indicated the Government intended to pass the amendments through a two-thirds parliamentary majority rather than through a national vote.

Matanga argues that such an approach would infringe constitutional rights guaranteed under Section 67(3)(a), which provides citizens with the right to participate in referendums where required by the Constitution.

He contends that allowing only Members of Parliament to vote on the disputed clauses would unfairly exclude millions of ordinary citizens from a process that directly affects the country's constitutional order.

"In this case, unfair discrimination against ordinary adult citizens occurs as follows: On one hand, Section 67(3)(a) of the Constitution allows more than eight million citizens to vote for or against Clauses 3, 4 and 9 of the Bill through a referendum regardless of such citizens' class or social status," Matanga submitted.

"On the other hand, the Government intends to allow only the 350 Members of Parliament to vote for such clauses because of their class or social status."

The applicants argue that the courts have a constitutional obligation to intervene where there is a likelihood that fundamental rights may be infringed.

The latest legal challenge adds to growing opposition to Constitutional Amendment Bill No. 3, which has generated intense political and legal debate over its implications for presidential succession, electoral processes and constitutional governance.

Meanwhile, Parliament is expected to continue deliberations on the Bill this week, with voting anticipated before the end of June if the legislative timetable proceeds as planned.
- The Standard