High Court Challenge Seeks Referendum on Key Constitutional Amendment Bill Provisions

A human rights activist has approached the High Court seeking an order declaring that critical provisions of the proposed Constitution of Zimbabwe Amendment (No. 3) Bill cannot legally take effect without first being approved through a national referendum.

The application, filed on 26 May with support from the Zimbabwe Human Rights NGO Forum, names Parliament, President Emmerson Mnangagwa, Justice Minister Ziyambi Ziyambi, the Zimbabwe Electoral Commission (ZEC), and the Attorney General as respondents. Applicant Youngerson Matete argues that his challenge is grounded in his rights as a citizen, registered voter, and beneficiary of Zimbabwe’s constitutional framework. He contends that Parliament's authority to amend the Constitution is limited by the Constitution itself and must comply with the procedures outlined in Section 328.

According to court papers, any attempt to amend constitutionally protected provisions without following the prescribed procedures would be unconstitutional, unlawful, and invalid from the outset.

Gazetted in February, Constitutional Amendment Bill No. 3 proposes far-reaching changes to Zimbabwe’s governance framework, including extending presidential, parliamentary, and local authority terms from five years to seven years. The Bill also proposes changes to electoral administration, including transferring voter registration responsibilities from ZEC to the Registrar General, establishing a separate electoral delimitation commission, abolishing the Zimbabwe Gender Commission, and expanding the Senate through additional presidential appointments.

Matete's application specifically targets Clauses 4, 9, and 10 of the Bill, which seek to extend terms of office. He argues that these provisions affect entrenched constitutional safeguards and therefore cannot be lawfully enacted without approval through a national referendum.

According to the application, bypassing a referendum would undermine constitutional supremacy, democratic participation, the sovereignty of the people, and the rule of law. Matete further argues that citizens would be deprived of their constitutional right to directly participate in decisions affecting protected constitutional provisions.

The application asks the High Court to determine whether proceeding with the amendments without a referendum would violate Sections 2, 3, and 328 of the Constitution. The applicant is seeking a declaration that Clauses 4, 9, and 10 are constitutionally protected and unenforceable unless approved by voters in a referendum. The draft order also seeks to prevent Parliament, the President, and the Justice Minister from implementing the contested provisions unless a referendum is first conducted. In addition, the court is being asked to direct ZEC to organise a referendum should Parliament ultimately pass the clauses.

Justice Minister Ziyambi has consistently defended the Bill, arguing that the proposed amendments do not trigger the constitutional provisions requiring a referendum. Addressing journalists earlier this year, Ziyambi said the legislation merely extends the electoral cycle from five years to seven years and does not alter presidential term limits. He argued that Section 328(6) requires a referendum only for amendments affecting provisions contained in Chapter 4, which deals with the Declaration of Rights, and Chapter 16, which concerns Agricultural Land. According to Ziyambi, the Bill leaves Section 91(2), which governs presidential term limits, unchanged and therefore does not require approval through a national vote.

The Law Society of Zimbabwe (LSZ) has previously warned Parliament that Clauses 4, 9, and 10 could be inconsistent with both the Constitution and international law if enacted without a referendum. In submissions made to Parliament in May, the LSZ argued that provisions extending presidential and parliamentary terms should not apply to incumbents unless approved by voters.

Similarly, the Zimbabwe Catholic Bishops' Conference (ZCBC) cautioned that Section 328(7) was deliberately entrenched to prevent constitutional amendments that benefit incumbents.

The bishops argued that Parliament cannot simply override constitutional protections through ordinary amendment provisions and warned that doing so could weaken constitutional supremacy.

They further described term limits as essential democratic safeguards designed to prevent excessive concentration of power, promote accountability, and support peaceful political succession. The ZCBC noted that experiences elsewhere in Africa have shown that efforts to extend incumbency through constitutional amendments have often contributed to political tensions, institutional weakening, and democratic instability.

The High Court challenge adds another legal dimension to the increasingly contentious debate surrounding Constitutional Amendment Bill No. 3. Supporters of the Bill argue that Parliament has the constitutional authority to amend provisions that are not specifically protected by referendum requirements. Critics, however, maintain that extending terms of office for incumbents strikes at the heart of constitutional safeguards and should be decided directly by the electorate. Matete is represented by Wilbert Mandinde of the Zimbabwe Human Rights NGO Forum.

Constitutional Amendment Bill No. 3