The Constitutional Court has removed a case brought by former Binga North legislator and lawyer Prince Dubeko Sibanda from its September 30, 2026 roll, delaying a fresh legal challenge to provisions of the Constitution of Zimbabwe Amendment Act No. 6 of 2026 that extend the terms of the President and Parliament.

The matter, Prince Sibanda v Parliament of Zimbabwe, President of Zimbabwe and Minister of Justice, Legal and Parliamentary Affairs, is registered as CCZ271/26.

In a notice dated September 23, Constitutional Court Registrar Dorothy Mwanyisa advised the parties that the matter would no longer be heard on Wednesday, September 30.

“Parties are advised that the Registrar has removed this matter from the roll of Wednesday 30 September 2026. Parties will be notified of the new date of hearing in due course,” the notice states.

No reason was given for the removal and the court has not announced a new hearing date.

The case also cites Alec Muchadehama, Andrew Demo, Fortune Chimbara and Olivia T. Zvedi among the parties.

The case is the latest chapter in Sibanda's legal challenge to the constitutional amendments that changed the length of presidential and parliamentary terms.

Sibanda filed the fresh Constitutional Court application in July, after the constitutional amendment had been enacted. His challenge targets provisions in Constitution of Zimbabwe Amendment Act No. 6 of 2026 which provide for the seven-year terms to apply to the incumbent President and the current Parliament despite Section 328(7) of the Constitution.

The disputed provisions were inserted into Sections 95 and 143 of the Constitution. They state that the extended terms apply “notwithstanding section 328(7)”.

Section 328(7) is significant because it provides that an amendment extending the period during which an office-holder may remain in office does not apply to a person who was already holding that office when the amendment was passed.

Sibanda's argument is not only on Parliament amending the Constitution. His case questions whether Parliament could use the amendment process to make the term-extension provisions applicable to incumbents despite the restriction contained in Section 328(7).

He is asking the Constitutional Court to determine whether Parliament exceeded its constitutional authority by adopting provisions that purport to operate notwithstanding that restriction.

Sibanda's latest application follows an earlier Constitutional Court challenge he filed in March 2026, when the proposed changes were still contained in Constitutional Amendment Bill No. 3.

At that stage, he sought to stop Parliament from processing clauses dealing with the presidential and parliamentary terms. He argued that the provisions were constitutionally impermissible because they sought to benefit people already holding office.

However, the Constitutional Court dismissed that application in June, finding the challenge premature because Parliament had not yet completed the legislative process.

The court's decision meant that the legal question could not be conclusively determined while the disputed provisions remained a Bill.

The circumstances changed after the amendment was passed and signed into law on July 7.

Sibanda subsequently returned to the Constitutional Court, this time challenging the enacted law rather than the Bill.

That distinction is central to the new case: the provisions he previously challenged as proposed legislation had become part of the Constitution by the time of his second application.