WATCH LIVE as Gambakwe unpacks the dismissal of the case brought by war veterans who were represented by Prof Lovemore Madhuku.
Case Overview & Plaintiffs
-
Plaintiffs: Six liberation war veterans – Reuben Zulu, Godfrey Gurira, Shoorai Nyamangodo, Joseph Chinyangare, Digmore Knowledge Ndiya, and Joseph Chinguwa.
-
Defendant: President Emmerson Mnangagwa.
-
Action: Filed a Constitutional Court application on February 16, 2026, to block Constitutional Amendment Bill No. 3.
-
Legal Representative: Prepared by constitutional law expert Professor Lovemore Madhuku.
Challenged Constitutional Amendments (Bill No. 3)
-
Extends the presidential term from 5 years to 7 years.
-
Replaces direct presidential elections with a system where Parliament elects the Head of State.
Alleged Violations by Mnangagwa
-
Section 90: Accused of breaching his duty to uphold the constitution and avoid conflicts between personal interests and public duties (since he personally benefits from the tenure extension).
-
Section 196(2): Accused of failing to maintain public confidence and prevent abuse of office.
-
Section 328(7): Violated the clause that bars constitutional amendments from extending the term of a sitting incumbent president unless specific safeguards are met.
-
Unlawful Cabinet Process: Acted unlawfully by chairing cabinet discussions on February 10 and approving the draft bill despite his personal interest.
Relief Sought by Applicants
-
A declaration that the President acted unconstitutionally.
-
Nullification of the cabinet’s approval of the bill.
-
An interdict preventing Mnangagwa from signing, assenting to, or advancing the legislation.
Political & Procedural Context
-
Parliamentary Gazette: The bill was gazetted by Speaker Jacob Mudenda on February 16, starting a 90-day public consultation period.
-
Expected Passage: With Zanu PF holding a two-thirds majority, passage is widely expected. Opposition CCC MPs are also expected to back it, as the term extension would also benefit them.
-
Referendum Dispute: Prominent lawyers argue the scale of changes requires a referendum, but the government insists it is not required – this dispute is also likely headed to the Constitutional Court.
-
Government’s Defence: Officials defend the bill as “constructive reforms” to strengthen democracy and align with other jurisdictions.
