The government has declared the Constitution of Zimbabwe Amendment (No. 3) Act, 2026 (CAA3) irreversible, insisting that the constitutional changes have passed all legally prescribed stages and are now firmly at the implementation stage, despite repeated court challenges by opponents.
With judges and senators appointed under the new constitutional framework already sworn in, the government says there is no legal basis for halting the implementation process, as the same litigants continue to approach the courts seeking to challenge the amendment.
The latest challenge has reignited the legal battle over CAA3, with six war veterans seeking to bypass the High Court and approach the Constitutional Court directly to contest provisions introducing a parliamentary electoral system for the presidency.
However, the government, through President Emmerson Mnangagwa, Justice, Legal and Parliamentary Affairs Minister Ziyambi Ziyambi and Attorney-General Virginia Mabiza, has dismissed the latest application, arguing that the amendment has already completed all constitutional requirements for enactment.
In an opposing affidavit filed through lawyer Sylvester Hashiti, the respondents said the amendment had passed every legally prescribed stage, making further challenges to its validity 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 rather than through a direct popular vote.
The respondents, however, argue that the applicants have failed to establish exceptional circumstances justifying direct access to the Constitutional Court, insisting that they should have approached the High Court first.
Addressing the court, Hashiti said the applicants had failed to comply with procedural requirements governing applications for direct access and had not provided sufficient grounds for bypassing the lower 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.”
Hashiti also questioned the applicants’ legal standing, arguing that they had failed to demonstrate how they were affected by the constitutional changes or establish a sufficient interest in bringing the matter 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.
He further argued that the applicants had not demonstrated why their case deserved exceptional treatment 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 questioned the decision to cite Mnangagwa in the proceedings, arguing that his constitutional role in the enactment process 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 Constitutional Court has reserved judgment in the application.
Meanwhile, the government maintains that CAA3 has moved beyond the enactment stage, with implementation of the new constitutional framework already under way.
The latest proceedings add to a series of legal challenges surrounding the amendment, with the government insisting that any further attempts to contest its validity must be pursued through established legal procedures.
With key appointments under the new framework already completed, the government maintains that the constitutional changes remain in force as the courts consider the latest application.
