THE government has declared the Constitution of Zimbabwe Amendment (No. 3) Act, 2026 (CAA3) irreversible, arguing that it has completed all constitutionally prescribed stages of enactment, as it pushes back against legal challenges to the new presidential electoral system.
The repeated court challenges to CAA3 have raised concerns over the same litigants flooding the courts with similar cases.
With CAA3 now at the implementation stage, judges and senators appointed under the new constitutional framework have already been sworn in, as the government maintains that the amendment has passed all constitutionally prescribed stages and its implementation is under way.
The position was set out in an opposing affidavit filed by President Emmerson Mnangagwa, Justice, Legal and Parliamentary Affairs Minister Ziyambi Ziyambi and Attorney-General Virginia Mabiza, who are opposing the war veterans’ application to bypass the High Court and directly challenge the constitutional changes in Constitutional Court.
Represented by lawyer Sylvester Hashiti, the respondents argued that the amendment had already passed through all the required legislative and constitutional processes, rendering the latest challenge 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 contesting the presidential electoral system introduced under CAA3, which provides for the election of the President by Parliament rather than through a direct popular vote.
However, the respondents maintain that the applicants have not demonstrated why they should be allowed to approach the Constitutional Court directly instead of first taking their case to the High Court.
The Constitutional Court has reserved judgment in the application.
Addressing the court, Hashiti said the applicants had failed to comply with the procedural requirements for direct access and had not established exceptional circumstances warranting the bypassing of 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 questioned the applicants’ legal standing, arguing that they had not provided sufficient evidence to establish their interest in bringing the challenge directly before the apex 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 demonstrate why their case warranted exceptional treatment by the Constitutional Court instead of following the ordinary judicial process.
“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 decision to cite Mnangagwa as a respondent, arguing that the President had no relevant legal interest in the dispute because the process leading to the amendment’s enactment had already been completed.
“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.”
The respondents maintain that CAA3 has completed the constitutionally prescribed enactment process and that its implementation should proceed in accordance with the law, arguing that any further challenges must meet established legal and procedural requirements.
They insist that the applicants should follow the ordinary judicial process rather than seek exceptional direct access to the Constitutional Court, as the government presses ahead with implementing the constitutional changes.
