THE response by Attorney-General Virginia Mabiza to the Constitutional Court challenge against Constitutional Amendment No. 3 Bill is not just dismissive — it is revealing.
By arguing that the concerns raised by war veterans are “premature” and “speculative”, the Attorney-General is asking Zimbabweans to ignore what is already unfolding in plain sight.
There is nothing speculative about an amendment that is already on the table.
The ruling Zanu PF party is openly pushing for changes that would extend presidential and parliamentary terms from five to seven years.
Public hearings have been scheduled.
Political mobilisation is underway.
Keep Reading
- ‘Govt spineless on wetland land barons’
- SA’s search for a fairer electoral system
- SA’s search for a fairer electoral system
- Mawere demands judge’s recusal
The intention is not hidden, it is active.
So what exactly is speculative?
To suggest that citizens must wait until the law is fully enacted before challenging it is to misunderstand — or deliberately misrepresent — the purpose of constitutional safeguards.
The whole point of constitutional litigation is to prevent violations before they occur, not to clean up after the damage has already been done.
By the time an unconstitutional law is enacted, the harm may already be irreversible.
Mabiza’s argument that critics should simply participate in parliamentary consultations, and only challenge the law after it has passed, places blind faith in a political process that many Zimbabweans no longer trust to act independently.
Consultations are not guarantees.
They are procedural steps and in a system where the ruling party commands overwhelming parliamentary dominance, they can easily become formalities rather than meaningful avenues for dissent.
The Attorney-General knows this.
That is why her argument rings hollow.
It becomes even more difficult to accept when placed alongside the political reality articulated, in stark terms, by President Emmerson Mnangagwa himself.
In a widely circulated statement from his time as Vice-President, Mnangagwa declared: “We are the majority. We are the people, we are the government, we are the army, we are the air force, we are the police… we determine everything.”
That is not the language of restraint.
It is the language of dominance.
And it is precisely why pre-emptive constitutional challenges are not only justified — they are necessary.
If one political formation openly asserts control over all levers of State power, then expecting that same system to fairly adjudicate objections through parliamentary processes alone is, at best, naïve and, at worst, disingenuous.
The war veterans who have approached the courts are not speculating.
They are responding to a clear and present trajectory — one in which constitutional amendments are being pursued in a manner that could fundamentally alter the balance of
power.
Their concern is simple: that changes to term limits and tenure could benefit those currently in office, undermining the very principle that the Constitution seeks to protect.
That concern deserves to be tested now, not later.
Waiting until the law is passed is like waiting for a house to burn down before questioning the faulty wiring.
By then, the damage is already done.
The courts exist precisely to intervene at such moments — to interpret the Constitution, to uphold its spirit and to prevent abuse before it becomes entrenched.
Mabiza’s stance, whether intentional or not, shifts the burden away from those pushing the amendment and onto those trying to defend the Constitution.
It tells citizens to trust the process, even when the process itself is under scrutiny.
That is not how constitutional democracy works.
Power must be checked in real time.
Zimbabweans are not fools.
They can see what is happening.
They can read the political signals.
And they understand that constitutional change is not a neutral exercise when it aligns so neatly with the interests of those in power.
Dismissing legitimate concerns as “speculation” does not make them disappear.
It only deepens public distrust.
If anything, it reinforces the urgency of the challenge and the need for the courts to step in before speculation becomes reality.