Online Reporter
Fidelis Munyoro, [email protected]
THE Constitutional Court has dismissed an application by two citizens seeking direct access to challenge the constitutionality of a Zanu-PF conference resolution they claimed was aimed at extending President Mnangagwa’s tenure beyond the constitutional limit.
In a unanimous judgment delivered by Deputy Chief Justice Paddington Garwe, with Justices Ben Hlatshwayo and Bharat Patel concurring, the court ruled that the applicants, Mr Moreprecision Muzadzi and Mr Pardon Gambakwe, had failed to demonstrate that it was in the interests of justice for the Constitutional Court to hear the matter as a court of first instance.
The Constitution of Zimbabwe Amendment No. 3 Act is now officially law, having been signed by President
Mnangagwa on July 7, 2026.
The legislation altered national governance by changing presidential selection, adjusting public office terms, and shifting administrative duties.
The applicants sought leave under section 167(5) of the Constitution to institute substantive constitutional proceedings, arguing that a resolution adopted at the Zanu-PF National People’s Conference in Mutare in October 2025 threatened citizens’ political rights by seeking to extend the President’s term of office from five years to seven years.
They contended that the resolution infringed constitutional provisions guaranteeing regular elections and limiting the President’s tenure, and alleged that President Mnangagwa acted inconsistently with his constitutional oath by not repudiating the resolution.
However, the Constitutional Court held that the application was procedurally defective and failed to comply with the Constitutional Court Rules governing applications for direct access.
Justice Garwe said the applicants had not properly pleaded the legal and factual basis for bypassing the High Court, which enjoys concurrent jurisdiction in constitutional matters.
“The application is not properly constituted for adjudication,” the court said, adding that merely citing constitutional provisions or alleging a constitutional grievance did not satisfy the threshold for direct access.
The court further held that the dispute was not ripe for determination because no Constitutional Amendment Bill proposing changes to presidential term limits had been introduced in Parliament. The DCJ said the alleged constitutional infringement remained speculative and depended on uncertain future legislative processes.
“What the applicants invite this Court to determine is the constitutionality of a possible future legislative process, contained in a political party resolution, which may or may not occur,” the judgment reads.
“Such a dispute remains eminently speculative and hypothetical. It is not justiciable.”
The court reaffirmed the doctrine of constitutional avoidance, saying courts should not decide abstract or hypothetical constitutional questions before disputes have crystallised into concrete controversies.
It said premature judicial intervention would risk intruding into matters falling within the constitutional domain of Parliament and the Executive.
The court also noted that direct access to the Constitutional Court is an extraordinary remedy reserved for exceptional cases where the interests of justice require litigants to bypass lower courts.
Having found that the applicants had failed to establish both the procedural requirements for direct access and the existence of a ripe constitutional dispute, the court dismissed the application.
Consistent with the general approach in constitutional litigation, the Constitutional Court made no order as to costs.
