CONCOURT POSTPONES CAA3 CHALLENGES TO NOVEMBER 18

By SBT Reporter, Harare

The Constitutional Court has postponed hearings into two legal challenges against Constitutional Amendment No. 3 (CAA3) to November 18, following concerns over the participation of judges appointed under the disputed changes.

The cases, which were scheduled to begin on Wednesday, November 11, will now be heard by a reconstituted bench that excludes additional judges appointed following the expansion of the Constitutional Court. The postponement followed a case-management meeting involving the parties and Deputy Chief Justice Elizabeth Garwe, who was presiding over the court.

Constitutional law professor Lovemore Madhuku, who represents the applicants, said the court wanted to establish whether the parties were comfortable proceeding with judges whose appointments were connected to provisions being challenged. Madhuku said the applicants objected to the participation of judges beyond the court's previous seven-member composition because the expansion itself was part of the constitutional dispute.

He said the parties agreed that the cases should proceed before the previous composition of the court, with Justice Antonetta Guvava included following the retirement of former Chief Justice Luke Malaba. The agreement, Madhuku explained, was that the applicants had no objection to Justice Guvava's participation but wanted the additional judges appointed under the disputed changes excluded.

The two applications were brought by former opposition legislator Prince Dubeko Sibanda and National Constitutional Assembly member Vhurande Mahlupeko. They raise separate legal questions about the process and substance of CAA3, which President Emmerson Mnangagwa signed into law in July 2026.

Sibanda challenges extension of incumbents' terms

Sibanda's application challenges provisions extending presidential and parliamentary terms from five to seven years, particularly their application to people already holding public office.

His argument is based on Section 328(7) of the Constitution, which provides safeguards against constitutional amendments extending the period an incumbent may remain in public office.

Madhuku said Sibanda's case questions whether the amendment can lawfully be applied to a sitting President. The challenge therefore seeks to establish whether the changes can extend the tenure of President Mnangagwa, whose current term was due to end in 2028 under the previous constitutional framework.

Mahlupeko questions amendment process

Mahlupeko's application focuses on the procedure followed in enacting the amendment.

He argues that some provisions included in the final legislation were not contained in the original Gazette notice that initiated the process, raising questions about whether the public had an adequate opportunity to make representations on the changes.

The challenge places the amendment process under scrutiny, particularly whether provisions introduced after the initial notice complied with constitutional requirements for public consultation.

CAA3 changes electoral and parliamentary arrangements

CAA3 introduced major changes to Zimbabwe's political and constitutional framework. Among its provisions, it extended presidential and parliamentary terms from five to seven years and changed the method of electing the President. Under the amended system, the President is elected by members of Parliament sitting jointly, replacing direct election by voters.

The changes also increased the Senate's composition from 80 to 90 members by providing for 10 additional presidential appointees. The amendment effectively provides for Mnangagwa to remain in office until 2030, rather than leaving office in 2028 as envisaged under the previous five-year electoral cycle. Supporters have defended the changes as necessary for political and institutional stability. Critics, however, argue that extending the terms of incumbent officeholders and removing the direct presidential vote undermine democratic participation and constitutional safeguards.

The November 18 proceedings are expected to bring the two challenges before a bench whose composition is no longer affected by the disputed expansion. The court is yet to determine the merits of either application.

Constitutional Amendment No. 3