HARARE, Jul 13 (NewsDay Live)- Former CCC Member of Parliament Prince Dubeko Sibanda has approached the Constitutional Court (ConCourt) seeking to nullify the recent constitutional amendments giving President Emmerson Mnangagwa a two- year term extension, describing the move as unconstitutional.
Sibanda, in his application, is also seeking the court to declare that the extension of the term of office of the President and legislators from five years to seven years should not benefit the incumbents.
In his application Sibanda cited the Parliament, the President of Zimbabwe and the Minister of Justice, Legal and Parliamentary Affairs as respondents.
Sibanda submitted that the Parliament's authority to amend the Constitution is exercisable only in accordance with section 328 (7) of the Constitution.
The former Binga North MP submitted that section 328(7) of the Constitution prohibits the application of a term extension amendment to any person who held or occupied the relevant public office, or an equivalent office, at any time before the amendment.
He said section 5(b) of the Constitution of Zimbabwe Amendment Act No. 6 of 2026, which inserted s 95(2a) into the Constitution, is inconsistent with s 328(7) of the Constitution and is invalid to the extent of its inconsistency.
Sibanda said his application impugns Parliament's conduct in passing the Constitution of Zimbabwe Amendment Act No. 6 of 2026, in particular sections 5(b) and 10(b) thereof, which purport to insert provisions into the Constitution extending the term of office of the President and the duration of Parliament in a manner that benefits incumbents notwithstanding s 328(7} of the Constitution.
"...it is my supplication this Court declares that the Parliament failed to fulfil its Constitutional obligations imposed by section 117 (2) (a) as read with 6 328 (7) of the constitution in its passing and enactment of Conshtution of Zimbebwe Amendment Act No. 6 of 2026, in particular sections 5(b) and 10(b), thereof.
- ED taken to ConCourt over judicial capture
- Biti files for ConCourt referral
- Woman challenges wilful transmission of HIV charge
- ConCourt challenge puts polls in peril
Keep Reading
"Such impugnation precipitates from the Parliaments duty to amend the Constitution in accordance with s 328 of the Constitution as enjoined by s 117 (2) (a) of the Constitution," Sibanda argues.
"It Is not directed at the wisdom, popularity or political desirability of a seven-year term. It is directed at the constitutional competence of an amendment that seeks to confer sn incumbency benefit in the teeth af s 328(7).
"The issue is now ripe. An earlier application Yrought by me under OCZ, 17/26 wes struck off under Judgement CCZ 9/26 because the provisions 1 sought to impugn were then still contained in a Bill. I have come to accept that at that stage, the attendant Bill had not been read, debated, voted upon, transinitted, assented to or promulgated. This Court held that the dispute had not yet crystallised."
Sibanda said the Bill has since been enacted and promulgated as Act No. 6 of 2026 and that the impugned clauses have now assumed legislative form and are no longer contingent proposals saying they are enacted provisions whose constitutionality now fails to be measured againet 6 328(7).
Sibanda said his application invites the court to perfom its constitutional function after promulgation to decide whether Parliament, in passing the impugned provisions, acted within the amending power given toi by 9 117(2}{a) as read with s 328.
"These provisions are not innocent drafting devices. They are designed to make the present President and the present Parliament benefit from a term-extension amendment despite the exprons ‘constitutional prohibition contained in s 328(7).
"... Parliament's amending power is not free-standing. It exists only as s328 permits. By passing provisions which say “Notwithstanding action 328(7)", the Parliament did not merely misread the Constitution. It enacted an express repudiation of the constitutional limitation that governs its own power," Sibanda said.
"Section 3281) defines a “term-limit provision” as a provision of the ‘Constitetion which limits the length of time that a person may hold or ‘ocupy a public office.
"Section 228(7) then provides that, notwithstanding any other provision of s 328, an amendment to term-limit provision is to extend the length of time that a person may hold or occupy any public office does not apply in relation to any person who held or occupied that office, or an equivalent office, at any time before the amendment," he added.
Sibanda submitted that the duration of Parliament determines the length of time for which members of the Senate and National Assembly should continue to occupy their public offices before disposition and the next general election.
He said Parliament cannot escape the section by describing the benefit as the “continuation in office of the Senate and National Assembly".
"The Senate end National Assembly act through their members, The practical and constitutional effect is to extend the tenure of current Members of parliament. That provision is constitutionslly impermissible.
The application is pending.
