SIX liberation war veterans have issued Parliament with a 72-hour ultimatum to halt Constitution Amendment No 3 Bill (CAB 3), accusing Speaker of the National Assembly Jacob Mudenda and Senate president Mabel Chinomona of violating the Constitution, ignoring court processes and presiding over a process tainted by corruption.
The controversial Bill passed in the Senate with 75 out of 80 senators backing it, just a week after it passed through the Lower House with a 216-vote majority against 42 in opposition.
The Bill awaits presidential assent after the National Assembly noted amendments by the Senate.
However, in an open letter addressed to Mudenda and Chinomona, the veterans demanded that Parliament immediately suspends all proceedings on the controversial Bill and withdraws it from further consideration.
The veterans — Reuben Zulu, Godfrey Gurira, Shoorai Nyamangodo, Joseph Chinyangare, Dogmore Knowledge Ndiya and Joseph Chinguwa — warned that the proposed constitutional changes were “fundamentally flawed, substantively unconstitutional and procedurally fraudulent”.
The latest intervention comes months after the same group approached the Constitutional Court (ConCourt) seeking to stop the amendment process.
Keep Reading
- Mr President, you missed the opportunity to be the veritable voice of conscience
- ED to commission new-look border post
- Zanu PF ready for congress
- EU slams Zim over delayed reforms
In that application, they argued that President Emmerson Mnangagwa acted unlawfully by chairing a Cabinet meeting that approved constitutional amendments from which he stood to benefit.
The application was, however, dismissed by a ConCourt bench that sat on May 20, which ordered that it be referred to lower courts.
Now, the veterans have turned their fire on Parliament itself, accusing legislators of disregarding constitutional safeguards and their own standing orders.
“The passage of CAB 3 through Parliament, as overseen by your offices, represents a grave assault on the supreme law of Zimbabwe,” the veterans wrote.
“It is our considered view, supported by legal and factual opinions we have sought, that the process has been fundamentally flawed, substantively unconstitutional and procedurally fraudulent.”
At the centre of their challenge is section 328 of the Constitution, which restricts amendments that allow incumbents to benefit from the extension of tenure without the approval of voters through a referendum.
Citing the ConCourt judgment in Sibanda v Parliament of Zimbabwe, the veterans argued that Parliament cannot lawfully bypass those constitutional protections.
“The substantive effect of section 328(7) is simple and non-negotiable: the incumbent cannot benefit from a term-limit extension,” they wrote.
“The court was clear that it matters not how you word it; if the substantive result is to allow the incumbent to benefit, a national referendum is constitutionally required.”
The veterans argued that CAB 3 attempts to circumvent those restrictions through provisions they say effectively override section 328 without seeking the approval of voters.
“This is a brazen attempt to render section 328(7) subject to the Bill, effectively nullifying its substantive limitation without a referendum,” they added.
The veterans also raised allegations of corruption surrounding the passage of the Bill.
They cited media reports and public allegations that legislators received vehicles and cash linked to support for CAB 3, arguing that such inducements may have violated parliamentary ethics, rules and criminal law provisions.
“There is public evidence that Members of Parliament have been induced, rewarded or corrupted by vehicles and money linked to support for CAB 3,” the veterans wrote.
“The law prohibits the conversion of a constitutional vote to a marketplace of private reward.”
In one of the petition’s most strongly worded passages, the veterans argued that votes cast by MPs who allegedly benefited from inducements could not be considered constitutionally valid.
“A vote bought by cash and keys is not a constitutional vote; it is an exhibit in a criminal inquiry,” they wrote.
The former fighters also accused Parliament of failing to investigate allegations of bribery and conflict of interest despite possessing the powers to do so under its standing orders.
“Parliament, therefore, had the machinery to stop the rot,” they wrote.
“It instead allowed the vote to proceed, as if a constitutional amendment can be washed clean by pretending not to smell the sewage.”
The veterans also accused Parliament of permitting MPs to vote on the Bill while court applications challenging the proposed extension of parliamentary terms remained unresolved.
“As presiding officers, you have allowed 210 Members of Parliament to vote on CAB 3 while they were actively ignoring lawsuits served upon them by voters from their own constituencies,” the letter added.
According to the veterans, the conduct amounted to “a flagrant disregard for the rule of law and a demonstration that the Legislature holds the Judiciary and the citizenry in contempt.”
Among their demands, the veterans want Parliament to suspend all CAB 3 proceedings, declare the National Assembly vote invalid, halt Senate consideration of the Bill, institute a parliamentary privileges inquiry and compel MPs to disclose any benefits received in connection with the constitutional amendment.
They are also demanding that Parliament refers allegations of bribery and inducements to the Zimbabwe Anti-Corruption Commission and the Prosecutor-General for investigation.
In a direct warning to Parliament’s leadership, the veterans gave Mudenda and Chinomona 72 hours to act.
"We call upon you, in your capacities as presiding officers, to act immediately and decisively," they wrote.
The petition concludes with a pointed reference to Mnangagwa’s liberation war credentials and legacy.
“President Emmerson Mnangagwa, as a fellow comrade, understands better than most the sacrifices that secured Zimbabwe’s independence,” the veterans wrote.
“It would, therefore, be a profound irony if actions taken in his name were to weaken the very Constitution that embodies the aspirations and sacrifices of that struggle.
“Such conduct would not enhance his legacy; it would cast a lasting shadow over it.”