Zimbabwe ConCourt: Reserved Judgment on War Veterans' Direct Access Presidential Vote

• Zimbabwe's Constitutional Court has reserved judgment on an application by war veterans seeking direct access to challenge the Constitution of Zimbabwe Amendment (No. 3) Act of 2026.
• The amendments in question removed the direct election of the president by voters, which applicants argue requires a national referendum.
• Professor Lovemore Madhuku, representing the war veterans, contends the matter is urgent and raises fundamental constitutional questions for the apex court.
• The government, through Advocate Sylvester Hashiti, opposes direct access, citing procedural non-compliance and a lack of demonstrated exceptional circumstances.
• The ConCourt's ruling on direct access will set a significant procedural precedent for future constitutional challenges in Zimbabwe.

The Constitutional Court's forthcoming decision on this direct access application is poised to establish a significant procedural precedent for how future constitutional challenges are handled within Zimbabwe's legal system.

Zimbabwe's Constitutional Court recently reserved judgment on a pivotal application for direct access, brought by a group of war veterans challenging the Constitution of Zimbabwe Amendment (No. 3) Act of 2026, enacted in July. These amendments notably removed the direct election of the president by voters, a change that has sparked significant legal contention. The applicants, represented by Professor Lovemore Madhuku, are seeking to bypass the High Court entirely, arguing that the matter's constitutional gravity warrants immediate consideration by the nation's apex court.

The three-judge panel overseeing the direct access application included Deputy Chief Justice Paddington Garwe, alongside Justices Rita Makarau and Chinembiri Bhunu. The court's decision on this procedural hurdle is keenly anticipated, as it will determine whether the substantive challenge to the constitutional changes will proceed directly to the highest judicial body or if the applicants must first navigate the lower courts.

Professor Madhuku articulated the applicants' rationale for seeking direct access, explaining that this procedure is invoked when a matter, though within the High Court's jurisdiction, is deemed so significant that it should be heard "first and last" by the Constitutional Court. He emphasized that such a request requires demonstrating exceptional circumstances to the ConCourt.

The central constitutional question at the heart of the war veterans' presidential election challenge is whether lawmakers can lawfully remove citizens' direct right to elect the president without conducting a national referendum. Madhuku argued that even if Chapter 4, which enshrines the Bill of Rights, is not explicitly altered, actions outside it that affect its provisions necessitate a referendum. The applicants underscored the urgency and profound importance of this issue, asserting that it cannot be adequately addressed by the High Court alone.

The government, represented by Advocate Sylvester Hashiti, vehemently opposed the direct access application. Hashiti, acting on behalf of President Emmerson Mnangagwa, Justice Minister Ziyambi Ziyambi, and Attorney-General Virginian Mabhiza, contended that the applicants failed to meet the stringent requirements for direct access, both procedurally and substantively. He argued that the applicants did not comply with the established rules for such applications and failed to adequately establish their basis for approaching the ConCourt directly.

Hashiti further highlighted that the war veterans did not provide proof of being registered voters, presidential candidates, or demonstrate any public interest to justify their direct approach. He also challenged the inclusion of President Mnangagwa as a respondent, labeling it "mischievous" and asserting that the President's role in assenting to the law was concluded and unchallenged, thus lacking justification for his involvement in the proceedings.

The Constitutional Court's forthcoming decision on this direct access application is poised to establish a significant procedural precedent for how future constitutional challenges are handled within Zimbabwe's legal system. Professor Madhuku himself noted that a ruling in favor of direct access would represent a "very big victory" for those opposing the constitutional amendments. This outcome would clarify the conditions under which the ConCourt can be approached directly, bypassing the High Court, particularly in matters of national constitutional importance.

Beyond the procedural implications, the eventual substantive decision on the Constitution of Zimbabwe Amendment (No. 3) Act of 2026 will clarify the constitutional requirements for altering fundamental electoral rights. This will have far-reaching effects on public law and electoral matters, particularly regarding the necessity of a Zimbabwe presidential election referendum when changes impact the direct election of the head of state.

Lawyers should closely follow the Constitutional Court's ruling on direct access, as it will establish a significant procedural precedent for future constitutional challenges in Zimbabwe. The eventual substantive decision will also clarify the constitutional requirements for amending electoral rights, impacting advice on public law and electoral matters.

Source: Original reporting via local media