Constitutional law professor Lovemore Madhuku says judges hearing challenges to Zimbabwe’s constitutional changes face pressure to deliver reasoned judgements, warning that their decisions could determine how history records the extension of political mandates without the people’s approval.
“The judges are also under pressure to make reasoned judgement, no judge wants to go in history that he made a ruling that he legitimizes members of parliament and president who unilaterally declared a term extension unto themselves without the mandate of the people,” Madhuku said.
His remarks come amid several legal challenges to the Constitution of Zimbabwe Amendment (No. 3) Act of 2026, which extended presidential and parliamentary terms from five to seven years and replaced direct presidential elections with a system in which the President is elected by Parliament.
The litigation raises questions about whether the changes comply with constitutional safeguards on electoral rights, the application of term extensions to incumbents and the procedures followed in enacting the amendments.
Madhuku has argued that removing citizens’ direct vote for the President affects constitutionally protected rights and should have required a referendum.
Related Stories
“You cannot take away the right of Zimbabweans to elect their president directly without a referendum. It’s very straightforward,” he said in earlier remarks on the legal challenge.
Another dispute centres on Section 328(7) of the Constitution, which restricts constitutional amendments extending the duration of terms of office from benefiting incumbents. The applicants challenging the changes argue that the new provisions cannot lawfully be used to extend the tenure of those already in office.
A separate application by National Constitutional Assembly member Vhurande Mahlupeko questions the legislative process, alleging that provisions incorporated into the final legislation were not included in the original Government Gazette notice that initiated the public consultation process.
The cases advance different legal arguments but collectively place the amendment’s validity, the limits of parliamentary power and the protection of electoral rights before the courts.
The Constitutional Court is scheduled to hear challenges brought by Mahlupeko and former opposition legislator Prince Dubeko Sibanda on November 11, while a separate challenge by the MDC over the removal of direct presidential elections is scheduled for November 25.
The applicants’ arguments have yet to be determined on their merits. The hearings will test whether the contested provisions and the process used to enact them meet constitutional requirements.
Leave Comments