The war veterans, who dragged President Emmerson Mnangagwa to the Constitutional Court, have launched a third legal application following the commencement of parliamentary debate on constitutional amendments seeking to extend the 83-year-old ruler’s term in office by two years.
The ex-combatants filed the case to block proposed amendments that would extend the presidential term from five to seven years, potentially allowing Mnangagwa to remain in power until 2030.
Represented by constitutional lawyer Lovemore Madhuku, the legal challenge focuses on several core arguments, including an alleged conflict of interest.
The applicants argue that Mnangagwa personally breached constitutional obligations under Sections 90 and 196 by chairing the Cabinet meeting that approved a draft Bill from which he would directly benefit.
The case relies heavily on Section 328(7) of the constitution, which prohibits any term-limit extensions from directly benefiting the current officeholder.
They are also challenging provisions that propose selecting presidents via a parliamentary vote rather than through direct popular elections, arguing this violates citizens' political and voting rights.
The war veterans are seeking a court order to declare the Cabinet's approval of Constitutional Amendment Bill No. 3 (CAB3) null and void, and to interdict Mnangagwa from signing the draft law into effect.
In their latest application, the war veterans and Mike Matanga are seeking relief “in the public interest” after Parliament, the president, the attorney general, and the Justice minister ignored their petition calling for a national referendum on CAB3.
More than 500 war veterans are reportedly against the enactment of Clauses 3, 4, and 9 of the Bill without such a referendum.
“The 50 war veterans who signed the petition are those that were quickly available in Harare to sign it,” the application states, asserting that Clauses 3, 4, and 9 require a national referendum under Section 328 (6) and (9) of the constitution.
“Regardless of the legal position above, both the executive and the legislature remain adamant about enacting the mentioned clauses despite several efforts made by concerned war veterans seeking a national referendum,” the applications.
In his founding affidavit, Matanga submitted that Justice, Legal and Parliamentary Affairs minister Ziyambi Ziyambi—as head of government business—categorically denied that the Bill requires a referendum immediately following public consultation hearings.
The applicants also quoted Ziyambi stating the bill would be enacted using a two-thirds majority in Parliament.
Matanga argued that because Clauses 3, 4, and 9 require a national referendum, any attempt to enact the bill using only a parliamentary majority infringes upon the right of every ordinary citizen to vote in all referendums to which the constitution applies.
Such conduct, he argued, violates Section 67 (3) (a) and further infringes the right of adult citizens not to be treated in an unfairly discriminatory manner based on class or social status.
“In this case, unfair discrimination against ordinary adult citizens occurs as follows: On one hand, Section 67 (3) (a) of the constitution allows more than eight million citizens to vote for or against Clauses 3, 4, and 9 of the bill through a referendum regardless of such citizens’ class or social status,” Matanga submitted.
“On the other hand, the government intends to allow only the 350 members of Parliament to vote for such clauses because of their class or social status”.
Matanga concluded that the constitution requires the courts to intervene when a fundamental human right is likely to be infringed.