Constitutional Court Dismisses Challenges to Constitutional Amendment Bill No. 3

HARARE — The Constitutional Court has dismissed separate legal challenges brought by a group of liberation war veterans and opposition legislator Prince Dubeko Sibanda against the controversial Constitutional Amendment Bill No. 3, clearing two immediate legal hurdles facing the proposed legislation.

In judgments delivered on Tuesday, Justice Barat Patel ruled that neither application met the requirements for determination by the Constitutional Court at this stage. The decisions come as Parliament continues deliberations on the Bill ahead of an anticipated vote later this week.

The first challenge was brought by six liberation war veterans represented by constitutional lawyer Lovemore Madhuku. The applicants sought an order declaring the proposed constitutional amendments invalid, arguing that the Bill was unconstitutional and that President Emmerson Mnangagwa should not have participated in Cabinet discussions concerning reforms from which they alleged he could potentially benefit.

However, Justice Patel ruled that the constitutional obligations relied upon by the applicants were not sufficiently specific to trigger the Constitutional Court's exclusive jurisdiction. As a result, the application was struck off the roll without the court determining the substantive constitutional issues raised.

In a separate ruling, the court also dismissed an application filed by Prince Dubeko Sibanda, finding that the matter had been brought before the courts prematurely. The judgment means that Sibanda's challenge will not proceed at the Constitutional Court in its current form. The court did not make findings on the substantive legality or constitutionality of the proposed amendments.

Speaking after the ruling, Madhuku said the Constitutional Court had not rejected the legal arguments on their merits but had instead determined that the matter had been filed in the wrong forum.

“The Constitutional Court has said that although the President has the duties that we had indicated in the application, those duties are not specific enough to allow the Constitutional Court to exercise its exclusive jurisdiction,” Madhuku said.

He explained that the ruling effectively directs applicants to first pursue the matter through lower courts before approaching the apex court through the normal appeals process.

“What this means is that the application ought to be lodged in a lower court such as the High Court. The High Court can determine those issues and then it goes up to the Constitutional Court through the normal processes of appeals and so forth,” he said.

The judgments remove, at least for the time being, two significant legal obstacles that could have delayed the progress of the Constitutional Amendment Bill No. 3. The Bill has generated intense political, legal, and constitutional debate across Zimbabwe. Critics argue that some of the proposed amendments could alter important constitutional safeguards and significantly reshape aspects of the country's governance framework. Supporters, however, contend that the reforms are necessary to strengthen governance structures, improve institutional efficiency, and enhance the functioning of key public offices.

With the Constitutional Court declining to intervene at this stage, attention now shifts back to Parliament, where lawmakers are expected to continue debating the proposed amendments.

Legal analysts say the rulings do not prevent future constitutional challenges, as the issues raised could still be brought before the High Court and potentially return to the Constitutional Court through the normal judicial appeals process. For now, however, Constitutional Amendment Bill No. 3 remains on course as legislators prepare to consider its next stage in Parliament.

Constitutional Amendment Bill No. 3 challenge