Constitutional Court grants direct access in Zanu PF resolution challenge

Constitutional Court

A legal challenge to a Zanu PF resolution that seeks to extend President Emmerson Mnangagwa’s term to 2030 received a procedural win on Monday when the Constitutional Court granted applicants Mbuso Fuzwayo and Ibetshu likaZulu leave to approach the apex court directly, their lawyer said.

The applicants argue that the party’s Resolution Number One, adopted at national conferences last year and in 2024, contravenes constitutional protections for political rights and equality before the law. The resolution proposes a two‑year extension of the president’s term and the lifespan of Parliament.

Direct access application granted

Attorney Nqobani Sithole told journalists that his clients had applied to the Constitutional Court under Section 167(5) of the Constitution for permission to seek direct access to the court. “As you are aware, our clients, Mbuso Fuzwayo and Ibetshu LikaZulu, filed an application to the Constitutional Court in terms of Section 167, Subsection 5, seeking leave for direct access to the Constitutional Court so that they can have their issue about Resolution No. 1, Section 24, by Exemptee of Challenge Status,” Sithole said.

He explained that the hearing before Justices Paddington Garwe, Ben Hlatshwayo, and Bharat Patel resulted in an order giving the applicants five days to file a substantive application challenging the resolution.

Constitutional grounds of the challenge

Sithole said the case focuses on alleged breaches of Section 67, which guarantees political rights, and Section 56, which ensures equal protection and benefit of the law. “At the heart of the case is Resolution Number One, where it seeks to extend the president’s term of office and the parliamentarian’s lifespan,” he said. “What Fuzwayo and Ibetshu LikaZulu are saying is that that kind of an arrangement is going to violate the constitution. More so if you look at Section 328. We are saying they should not benefit from this kind of an amendment because they are the ones that are in office now.”

Sections 95 and 143, which address the tenure of the President and Parliament, and Section 328, which limits constitutional amendments that extend incumbents’ terms, are central to the applicants’ legal argument.

Public interest litigation and wider participation expected

Sithole described the matter as public interest litigation and said Fuzwayo has a history of human‑rights litigation. He expressed confidence in the strength of the case and said the court’s decision to allow direct access underscored the seriousness of the issues raised.

“We are very confident. We’ve always been confident. We knew that we were going to be granted access, and we were very confident that the Constitutional Court would make a pronouncement because the constitution is clear,” he said.

Sithole said the applicants expect other individuals and organisations to join the proceedings to bolster the public interest dimension of the case. “We hope to see quite a lot of individuals coming in and assisting Mbuso and Ibetshu likaZulu. Because it’s public interest litigation, we’re expecting all those who have an input to come in so that we’ve got a solid case. We protect our constitution. We’ve got a duty to do so,” he said.

Respondents and legal representation

Counsel Tichawana Nyahuma appeared for the respondents, Zanu PF, while Mike Chimombe from the Attorney General’s Office represented the Ministry of Justice, Legal and Parliamentary Affairs, the Speaker of Parliament, the Attorney General, and the President of Zimbabwe.

Zanu PF resolution challenge