THE Constitution of Zimbabwe Amendment (No. 3) Act, 2026 (CAA3) has become irreversible after completing all legally prescribed stages for enactment, the Constitutional Court has been told.
The assertion was made in an opposing affidavit filed by President Emmerson Mnangagwa, Justice, Legal and Parliamentary Affairs Minister Ziyambi Ziyambi and Attorney-General Virginia Mabiza in a case in which six war veterans are seeking direct access to the Constitutional Court to challenge the new presidential electoral system.
The respondents, represented by lawyer Sylvester Hashiti, said the constitutional amendment had already gone through all the required legislative and constitutional processes, making any subsequent challenge to its validity legally untenable.
“The Constitutional Amendment Bill No. 3 has now passed all legally prescribed stages and requirements for its enactment. Accordingly, any subsequent challenge to its validity is legally untenable and ought to be dismissed.”
The six war veterans are challenging the presidential electoral system introduced under CAA3, which provides for the election of the President by Parliament.
However, the respondents argued that the applicants had failed to satisfy the requirements for direct access to the Constitutional Court and should instead have approached the High Court first.
The Constitutional Court has reserved judgment in the application.
Hashiti told the court that the applicants had failed to comply with procedural requirements governing direct access and had not established exceptional circumstances to justify bypassing the High Court.
“So, today we are arguing an application for direct access, where the war veterans are seeking leave from the court to approach it, to challenge the amendments, in particular the issues to do with the direct election of the President,” Hashiti said.
“Procedurally, the applicants did not comply with the rules, did not comply with the requirements required in an appeal of this nature.
“Secondly, the applicants did not set out on what basis they were approaching the court.”
He also challenged the applicants’ standing, arguing that they had failed to demonstrate a sufficient legal or public interest in bringing the matter directly before the Constitutional Court.
“They did not prove their voters, they did not prove that they are presidential candidates, they did not prove any interest, even a public interest, on why they were approaching the court,” he said.
Hashiti further argued that the applicants had failed to establish exceptional circumstances justifying direct access to the Constitutional Court.
“We also referred the court to the issue that on the substance of the application itself, there was no case set out as to why exceptionally the war veterans must come to the Constitutional Court and not the High Court,” he said.
“They should have gone to the High Court as a court of first instance, because that is the court which deals with matters as a first instance.”
The respondents also challenged the inclusion of President Mnangagwa as a respondent, arguing that he had no legal interest in the constitutional challenge.
“The President has no interest, there is no justification for involving him in these things, because his function was already concluded and no one has challenged that the President was wrong in ascending to the throne.”
“So therefore the issues to do with the President are not necessary, they are simply for other reasons, but legally they are unnecessary.”
