War Veterans Challenge Presidential Tenure Extension in Constitutional Court
A significant legal battle is unfolding in Zimbabwe’s Constitutional Court as a group of war veterans has mounted a challenge against proposed amendments that could potentially extend President Emmerson Mnangagwa’s term in office by an additional two years. The veterans argue that these amendments are unconstitutional and designed to unlawfully prolong the President’s rule.
The applicants, including Reuben Zulu, Godfrey Gurira, Shoorai Nyamangodo, Joseph Chinyangare, Digmore Knowledge Ndiya, and Joseph Chinguwa, are being represented by prominent constitutional lawyer Lovemore Madhuku. Their core argument centres on the belief that the proposed legislative changes violate the supreme law of the land.
Crucially, President Emmerson Mnangagwa himself has not yet filed any opposing papers in response to the Constitutional Court challenge. This absence of a formal defence from the President has been interpreted by the applicants as a tacit acknowledgment of their claims.
In a replying affidavit submitted to the court, Reuben Zulu, one of the applicants, explicitly stated that the President’s failure to file opposing documents signifies his non-opposition to the relief being sought by the war veterans. Zulu contends that allegations concerning the President’s constitutional duties and tenure should be directly addressed by him, and that the Attorney-General cannot adequately represent the President in such a fundamental matter.
The legal team representing the war veterans maintains that the Attorney-General, Virginia Mabhiza, who is cited as the second respondent in the case, cannot legally act on behalf of the President in this specific constitutional challenge. While Mabhiza has filed an opposing affidavit, asserting that she is acting on her own behalf and on behalf of the President with his authorisation, the applicants argue this is insufficient.
Zulu’s affidavit elaborates on this point, stating that the Attorney-General’s averment of representing the President does not transform her opposing affidavit into the President’s own defence. The legal advice received by the applicants suggests that the law does not permit the Attorney-General to speak for the President in an application brought under section 167(2)(d) of the Constitution.
Furthermore, the applicants argue that the obligation to respond to claims of failing to fulfil constitutional duties is a personal one for the President. This responsibility, they assert, is non-delegable and cannot be transferred to any other State official, irrespective of the circumstances.
The war veterans’ legal action seeks to have the proposed amendments nullified by the Constitutional Court. Their plea is based on the premise that these amendments are not only unconstitutional but also serve as a mechanism to unlawfully extend President Mnangagwa’s time in office, thereby undermining democratic principles and the established constitutional order. The outcome of this case is expected to have significant implications for the future of presidential tenure and constitutional interpretation in Zimbabwe. The court’s decision will be keenly watched, as it touches upon fundamental aspects of governance and the rule of law within the nation.
