The legal challenge to a resolution by the ruling Zanu PF seeking to extend President Emmerson Mnangagwa’s term of office to 2030 by Mbuso Fuzwayo and his Ibetshu likaZulu, got a boost on Monday after the Constitutional Court granted the applicants permission to directly approach the apex court, their lawyer said.
The applicants say the ruling party’s resolution at its national conferences last year and in 2024 violates key constitutional provisions relating to political rights and equality before the law. Their case centres on Zanu PF’s Resolution Number One, which seeks to extend the President’s term of office and the lifespan of Parliament by two years.
Nqobani Sithole told journalists that his clients initially approached the Constitutional Court seeking leave for direct access in terms of Section 167(5) of the Constitution.
“As you are aware, our clients, Mbuso Fuzwayo and Ibetshu LikaZulu filed an application to the Constitutional Court in terms of Section 167, Subsection 5 seeking leave for direct access to the Constitutional Court so that they can have their issue about Resolution No. 1, Section 24, by Exemptee of Challenge Status,” Sithole said.
He explained that the applicants allege the resolution violates Section 67 of the Constitution, which guarantees political rights, as well as Section 56, which provides for equal protection and benefit of the law.
“What transpired in court before Justice Paddington Garwe, Justice Ben Hlatshwayo and Justice Bharat Patel is that the parties found each other and an order had been issued and we were given five days to file a substantive application to challenge that particular resolution,” he said.
Keep Reading
- Commodity price boom buoys GB
- NoViolet Bulawayo’s new novel is an instant Zimbabwean classic
- New perspectives: Building capacity of agricultural players in Zim
- Fired judge given 2 weeks to return govt property
Sithole clarified that Monday’s proceedings focused solely on securing direct access to the Constitutional Court, which is not automatically granted.
“The students who are now approaching this question have their issue or case ventilated by that court. You cannot have direct access to that court without making an application for sanction. So today it was just an application for direct access which has been granted,” he said.
At the heart of the case is the interpretation of several constitutional provisions, including Sections 95 and 143, which deal with the tenure of the President and Parliament, as well as Section 328, which restricts constitutional amendments that extend terms of office for incumbents.
“What is happening is that ZANU-PF has made certain resolutions. Resolution number one, where it seeks to extend the president’s term of office and the parliamentarian’s lifespan,” Sithole said.
“So, what Fuzwayo and Ibetshu LikaZulu are saying is that that kind of an arrangement is going to violate the constitution. More so if you look at Section 328. We are saying they should not benefit from this kind of an amendment because they are the ones that are in office now.”
Sithole expressed confidence in the strength of the applicants’ case, saying the Constitutional Court’s decision to grant direct access already demonstrated the seriousness of the issues raised.
“We are very confident. We’ve always been confident. We knew that we were going to be granted access and we were very confident that the Constitutional Court would make a pronouncement because the constitution is clear,” he said.
Responding to questions about his clients’ motivations, Sithole described the matter as a continuation of public interest litigation efforts spearheaded by Fuzwayo.
“He has always been doing that. That’s public interest litigation. He is a human rights litigant. He’s always been very active in this and this is not a different scenario at all,” he said.
He added that any alleged constitutional violation automatically elevates a case to one of public interest.
“Look, if there is a violation of the constitution, in our view, it’s definitely public interest litigation,” Sithole said.
Looking ahead, Sithole indicated that the applicants expect wider participation from individuals and organisations interested in defending constitutional democracy.
“We are confident. The reason why we’ve been granted direct access is because we have got a case to start with. The court would not have accepted this kind of decision if the matter was so advanced,” he said.
“We hope to see quite a lot of individuals coming in and assisting Mbuso and Ibetshu likaZulu. Because it’s public interest litigation, we’re expecting all those that have got an input to come in so that we’ve got a solid case. We protect our constitution. We’ve got a duty to do so.”
Tichawana Nyahuma appeared for the respondents, Zanu PF, while Mike Chimombe from the Attorney General’s Office represented the Ministry of Justice, Legal and Parliamentary Affairs, the Speaker of Parliament, the Attorney General and the President of Zimbabwe.