The Constitutional Court has dismissed separate legal challenges brought by six war veterans and former opposition legislator Prince Dubeko Sibanda against the proposed Constitutional Amendment Bill No. 3.
In judgments delivered on Tuesday, Justice Barat Patel ruled that neither application met the legal requirements necessary for the Constitutional Court to consider the matter.
The first application, filed by the war veterans represented by constitutional lawyer Professor Lovemore Madhuku sought to have the proposed constitutional amendments declared invalid arguing that the Bill was unconstitutional and sought to alter key provisions of the country’s supreme law.
However, Justice Patel held that the application did not satisfy the threshold required for the Constitutional Court’s direct intervention and dismissed the matter.
In a separate ruling, the apex court also dismissed an application by former Binga North legislator Prince Dubeko Sibanda who had challenged the same Bill.
Justice Patel found that Sibanda’s case had been brought prematurely and was therefore not yet ripe for determination by the court.
Speaking after the ruling, Professor Madhuku said the court had not pronounced itself on the merits of the case or the constitutionality of the proposed amendments.
Instead, he said, the court found that the constitutional duties cited in the application were not sufficiently specific to invoke the Constitutional Court’s exclusive jurisdiction.
“The Constitutional Court has said that although the President has the duties that we had indicated in the application, those duties are not specific enough to allow the Constitutional Court to exercise its exclusive jurisdiction,” Madhuku said.
He said the judgment effectively meant that the matter should first be brought before a lower court.
“What this means is that the application ought to be lodged in a lower court such as the High Court. The High Court can determine those issues and then it goes up to the Constitutional Court through the normal processes of appeals and so forth,” he said.
The rulings mark a procedural setback for opponents of Constitutional Amendment Bill No. 3 although the court’s decisions do not address the substance of the proposed amendments or determine whether the Bill itself is constitutional.
The proposed legislation has generated significant public debate with supporters arguing that it seeks to improve governance while critics contend that some of its provisions could have far-reaching implications for Zimbabwe’s constitutional order.
With the Constitutional Court declining to hear the matter at this stage, any further legal challenge is now likely to begin in the High Court before potentially returning to the country’s highest court through the appeals process.
