Source: ‘CAB3 lawsuits procedurally defective’ – herald
Fidelis Munyoro-Chief Court Reporter
In what could be the tip of the iceberg, a lawyer representing Uzumba legislator Cde Wiriranai Muchemwa has said the court application made by a voter in his constituency was “procedurally defective, premature and directed at the wrong respondents”.
The case against the legislator is similar to some other cases that have been filed across the country to challenge provisions of Constitution of Zimbabwe Amendment Bill No. 3 of 2026.
The legislator, who is being represented by his lawyer, Mr Tichawana Nyahuma, raised a series of preliminary objections, which he argued were sufficient to dispose of the matter before the court considers the merits of the challenge.
Responding to the application, Cde Muchemwa implored the Constitutional Court (ConCourt) to dismiss an application filed by voter Yvonne Kapiripiri.
In an opposing affidavit filed before the court, the MP said Kapiripiri had improperly cited him solely because he was the incumbent Zanu PF Member of Parliament for Uzumba Constituency, despite his lack of authority to enact, amend, withdraw or invalidate constitutional legislation.
“I am not in Parliament, I am not the Speaker of the National Assembly. I am not the Attorney-General. I am not the Minister responsible for the Bill,” Cde Muchemwa said, adding that he had no unilateral power over the constitutional amendment process.
Cde Muchemwa also contended that the founding affidavit was invalid because it was not properly commissioned, saying the commissioner of oaths’ stamp failed to identify the office or capacity in which the commissioner acted.
He also challenged Kapiripiri’s legal standing, arguing that while she claimed to be a registered voter seeking relief based on that status, she had not provided proof of registration.
“She, therefore, cannot assert any case which is predicated on a status which she has not established,” Cde Muchemwa said.
The MP further argued that the application suffers from fatal non-joinder because it seeks relief affecting Parliament, the legislative process and the constitutionality of provisions contained in the amendment bill without citing parties such as Parliament, the Speaker of the National Assembly, the President of the Senate, the Minister of Justice, Legal and Parliamentary Affairs and the Attorney-General.
According to MP Muchemwa, the challenge is also premature because it seeks declarations on a constitutional bill that has not yet become law.
He argued that the Constitution provided specific mechanisms through which the ConCourt may advise on proposed legislation and that Kapiripiri’s application falls outside those constitutional procedures.
“The Bill is not sure to retain its present form or content when it has come out of that rigorous process,” he said, referring to parliamentary debate and possible amendments before the legislation is enacted.
Cde Muchemwa denied allegations that he intends to remain in office beyond the constitutional term ending in September 2028, saying no amendment has been enacted extending the tenure of Members of Parliament.
“There is no factual basis for the applicant’s assertion that I will unlawfully remain in office,” he said. “The complaint is speculative.”
The MP also rejected claims that the proposed amendments have already infringed political rights guaranteed under the Constitution.
He argued that no election has been postponed, no voter has been prevented from voting and no law currently in force restricts citizens from exercising their political rights.
“No enacted law presently prevents applicant from voting in any election to which the Constitution or any law applies,” he stated.
Addressing concerns over proposed changes to the presidential electoral system, Cde Muchemwa said Parliament is constitutionally empowered to make laws for the peace, order and good governance of Zimbabwe, including changes to electoral arrangements.
“It is not unconstitutional to change the electoral system,” he argued. “The vote remains and will be exercised within the new electoral system.”
Throughout the affidavit, Cde Muchemwa maintained that the application seeks what amounts to an advisory opinion on proposed legislation rather than the resolution of an actual constitutional dispute.
He argued that direct access to the ConCourt should not be granted because the matter is unripe, essential parties have not been joined and the application has been brought against a single constituency MP who lacks authority over the legislative process.
“The intended application does not enjoy prospects of success,” Cde Muchemwa said. “It is premature, defective for non-joinder, misdirected against the wrong respondent, and seeks pre-enactment advisory relief outside the proper constitutional channels.”
He consequently asked the ConCourt to dismiss the application with costs.
Kapiripiri, is among people who are seeking to challenge aspects of Constitution Amendment Bill No. 3 of 2026, including proposed provisions relating to parliamentary tenure and changes to the election of the President, arguing that the amendments would violate constitutional safeguards and political rights.
The ConCourt has yet to determine whether the application will proceed.
COMMENTS