Attorney-General Virginia Mabiza has asked the Constitutional Court of Zimbabwe to throw out an application challenging a proposed extension of Emmerson Mnangagwa’s term, arguing that the case is premature.
The application was brought by six war veterans, Reuben Zulu, Godfrey Gurira, Shoorai Nyamangodo, Joseph Chinyangare, Digmore Knowledge Ndiya and Joseph Chinguwa, who are represented by constitutional lawyer Lovemore Madhuku. They are contesting planned constitutional amendments that could allow Mnangagwa to remain in office for an additional two years.
In her response to the court, Mabiza—listed as the second respondent—argued that the challenge is speculative because the proposed Constitutional Amendment No. 3 Bill has not yet been enacted. She said the applicants should instead raise their concerns during parliamentary consultations and only approach the courts if the bill becomes law.
Mabiza also cautioned against judicial interference in the legislative process, emphasizing the principle of separation of powers. She maintained that Parliament must be allowed to complete its law-making role without court intervention, and that the judiciary’s role is limited to assessing laws once they have been passed.
Mnangagwa, who is cited as the first respondent, has not filed opposing papers in the matter. Mabiza indicated she was also representing his interests, noting that the dispute revolves around legal interpretation rather than contested facts.
However, the applicants reject the argument that their case is premature. Zulu, the lead applicant, insists the issue goes beyond a future law and instead concerns the President’s current conduct.
He argues that Mnangagwa has already breached the Constitution by supporting, through Cabinet processes, a proposal that could extend his own tenure. According to Zulu, this conduct violates constitutional provisions that prohibit self-serving term extensions and undermines the President’s duty to uphold the Constitution.
Zulu further contends that Mnangagwa should have recused himself from any involvement in advancing such proposals, given the potential personal benefit.
Mabiza disputes this interpretation, arguing that the President is not constitutionally required to determine whether proposed legislation is lawful, stating that such judgments fall within the courts’ mandate.
Zulu also pointed to Mnangagwa’s failure to submit opposing affidavits as an indication that he is not resisting the application. He emphasized that the legal challenge is narrowly focused on the President’s actions, rather than Parliament’s role.
The matter is now before the Constitutional Court for determination.
