HARARE, Jul. 15 (NewsDay Live) – The Constitutional Court has reserved judgment in a case challenging President Emmerson Mnangagwa’s decision to reassign Zimbabwe Human Rights Commission (ZHRC) chairperson Fungayi Jessie Majome to the Public Service Commission (PSC).
Political activist Allan Chipoyi is seeking an order declaring the President’s decision unconstitutional, null and void, arguing that the reassignment amounted to an unlawful removal of Majome from office.
Chipoyi was represented by advocates Eric Matinenga, Doug Coltart of the Zimbabwe Lawyers for Human Rights and Tazorora Musarurwa. Advocate Silvester Hashiti appeared for President Mnangagwa before a full Constitutional Court bench led by Chief Justice Elizabeth Gwaunza.
The bench reserved judgment after hearing submissions from both parties.
Chipoyi wants the court to declare that by removing Majome under the guise of a “reassignment”—a mechanism not provided for in the Constitution for dealing with members of independent commissions—the President failed to fulfil his constitutional obligations under sections 90(1), 237(3) and 187(8) of the Constitution.
He is also seeking an order reinstating Majome to the full exercise of her duties as ZHRC chairperson and interdicting the President or anyone acting on his behalf from interfering with the tenure of commissioners except in accordance with section 237 of the Constitution.
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
In his application, filed under section 167(2)(d) of the Constitution, Chipoyi argues that the Constitutional Court has exclusive jurisdiction to determine whether the President has failed to fulfil a constitutional obligation.
He contends that the Constitution does not recognise “reassignment” as a lawful means of terminating or interrupting the tenure of a member of an independent commission.
According to the application, sections 237(3) and 187 require that a commissioner may only be removed following an investigation and recommendation by a tribunal appointed for that purpose.
Chipoyi argues that no tribunal was appointed and no recommendation was made before Majome was moved to the PSC.
“By nonetheless effecting her removal under the guise of a ‘reassignment’, a mechanism not recognised in the Constitution, the respondent failed to fulfil his constitutional obligation,” Chipoyi argued in the application.
Chipoyi further argues that the President’s actions breached section 90(1) of the Constitution, which obliges the Head of State to uphold, defend, obey and respect the Constitution.
He says he has standing to bring the application as a Zimbabwean citizen because the independence of Chapter 12 institutions is intended to protect the rights of the public.
“The unlawful interference with the tenure and independence of Majome… erodes the constitutionally guaranteed independence of members of Chapter 12 institutions,” Chipoyi argued in the application.
The application notes that Majome was appointed ZHRC chairperson on March 20, 2024.
It further states that on April 7, 2026, the commission issued a public statement raising concerns over the public consultation process for the Constitution of Zimbabwe Amendment (No. 3) Bill, citing limited venues, alleged intimidation of dissenting voices and what it described as controlled participation.
Three days later, on April 10, Chief Secretary to the President and Cabinet Martin Rushwaya announced that Majome had been reassigned to serve as a commissioner in the Public Service Commission with immediate effect.
Chipoyi argues that the timing of the decision suggests it was retaliatory rather than administrative.
“The temporal proximity and political context demonstrate that this action was not a routine administrative deployment, but a punitive, retaliatory measure designed to purge a dissenting constitutional voice from an independent commission,” he argued.
He said Majome had neither resigned nor been found guilty of misconduct or incompetence, and that the government provided no reasons for the reassignment.
Chipoyi maintained that by bypassing the tribunal process prescribed by the Constitution, the President failed to comply with constitutional safeguards governing the removal of members of independent commissions.