HARARE — Zimbabwe’s Constitutional Court has reserved judgment on whether six liberation war veterans should be allowed to directly challenge constitutional changes that replaced the direct election of the President by voters with a parliamentary election of the Head of State.
The application, heard in Harare on Tuesday, places the country’s amended presidential electoral system under its most significant legal scrutiny since the Constitution of Zimbabwe Amendment (No. 3) Act of 2026 came into force.
The three-member bench was led by Deputy Chief Justice Paddington Garwe, sitting with Justices Rita Makarau and Chinembiri Bhunu.
The six applicants, represented by constitutional lawyer Professor Lovemore Madhuku and a legal team that includes Advocate Lewis Uriri, are seeking permission to bypass the High Court and have the Constitutional Court determine the matter directly.
Their argument centres on the contention that removing citizens’ direct vote for the President amounts to a reduction of political rights that required approval through a referendum.
Madhuku told the court that the applicants were not simply asking judges to interpret an ordinary legislative dispute, but to determine whether a fundamental change to Zimbabwe’s constitutional electoral architecture could be achieved without directly consulting voters.
“You cannot take away the right of ordinary citizens to vote directly for the president without a referendum,” Madhuku said.
Analysts see wider constitutional implications
A constitutional analyst who spoke to The Zimbabwe Financial Mail said the significance of Tuesday’s proceedings extended beyond the six applicants.
“The immediate question is procedural — whether the Constitutional Court will grant direct access — but the substantive issue is much bigger. The applicants are asking whether Parliament can fundamentally alter the mechanism through which citizens exercise their presidential electoral mandate without triggering the referendum provisions of the Constitution.”
Another legal analyst said the case could become an important test of the relationship between Parliament’s constitutional amendment powers and citizens’ political rights.
“The distinction between amending constitutional text and diminishing a constitutional right through an amendment to another provision is likely to be central. That is where the legal argument becomes particularly important.”
The government, however, has rejected the applicants’ attempt to approach the apex court directly.
Government says High Court should hear case first
Advocate Sylvester Hashiti, representing President Emmerson Mnangagwa, Justice Minister Ziyambi Ziyambi and Attorney-General Virginia Mabhiza, argued that the applicants had failed to satisfy the requirements for direct access.
Hashiti questioned whether the applicants had demonstrated sufficient legal standing or public interest and argued that they had not established exceptional circumstances warranting the bypassing of the High Court.
“They should have gone to the High Court as the court of first instance,” Hashiti told the court.
The government also challenged the inclusion of President Mnangagwa as a respondent, arguing that his role in assenting to the legislation had not itself been challenged.
Hashiti described the President’s citation as unnecessary and asked the court to dismiss the application.
Direct presidential election replaced
The dispute follows the enactment of constitutional amendments that changed the manner in which Zimbabwe chooses its President.
Under the previous electoral framework, registered voters directly elected the President. The amended Constitution now provides for the President to be elected by members of the Senate and National Assembly sitting jointly.
The change has consequently shifted the immediate electoral mandate from individual voters to Parliament.
The broader amendments also increased the presidential and parliamentary terms from five to seven years, changes that have significant implications for Zimbabwe’s electoral timetable.
One political analyst told The Zimbabwe Financial Mail that the parliamentary election model fundamentally changes the political incentives surrounding presidential succession.
“Once the President is elected by Parliament rather than directly by citizens, the parliamentary composition becomes decisive. That makes the relationship between parliamentary elections, party structures and presidential succession much more important than under the previous system.”
The analyst cautioned, however, that the political consequences should not be confused with the narrower legal question currently before the Constitutional Court.
“The court is not being asked to decide whether parliamentary election of a President is politically desirable. It is being asked whether the constitutional process used to introduce that change was lawful.”
Madhuku argues direct access would prevent delay
Madhuku told the court that sending the applicants to the High Court could create unnecessary delays because a constitutional ruling by the lower court could ultimately require confirmation by the Constitutional Court.
“Let’s not waste time going to the High Court because if the High Court rules in our favour, the ruling would not take effect until confirmed by the ConCourt,” he said.
He described a decision granting direct access as a major breakthrough for the applicants.
“If they allow us direct access, it would be a very big victory,” Madhuku said.
A constitutional analyst told The Zimbabwe Financial Mail that the direct-access ruling could itself become significant jurisprudence.
“The court’s decision on access will tell litigants how strictly it intends to police the boundary between matters that should begin in the High Court and those exceptional constitutional disputes that justify approaching the apex court directly.”
More challenges await the courts
The war veterans’ case is not the only legal challenge to the constitutional amendments.
Other applications have been filed by different political actors and individuals, raising separate arguments concerning the amendments.
Prince Dubeko Sibanda is challenging the changes on the basis that they benefit incumbents, while another matter involving the MDC under Douglas Mwonzora is also pending.
National Constitutional Assembly member Vhurande Mahlupeko has separately challenged amendments on the basis that provisions were altered despite not appearing in the government gazette.
Another challenge has been brought by individuals represented by former Finance Minister Tendai Biti, with Advocate Lewis Uriri also involved in that litigation.
The Constitutional Court is therefore likely to confront several different legal arguments concerning the constitutional amendments.
The MDC’s separate challenge is scheduled for September 23 and also centres on the change to the presidential electoral system.
A constitutional test beyond one election
For Zimbabwe, the significance of the litigation extends beyond the next presidential election.
The cases raise fundamental questions about how far Parliament can go when amending the Constitution, the protection of citizens’ political rights and the circumstances in which constitutional amendments require direct approval from voters.
A second analyst told The Zimbabwe Financial Mail: “This is ultimately a question about where constitutional sovereignty resides. Parliament has significant authority to amend the Constitution, but that authority is itself exercised within constitutional limits. The litigation is testing where those limits lie.”
For now, the Constitutional Court has reserved its judgment on the war veterans’ application.
If direct access is granted, the applicants will take their substantive challenge directly before the apex court. If it is refused, the litigation is likely to begin in the High Court, potentially setting up another journey through Zimbabwe’s judicial system.
Either way, Tuesday’s proceedings have placed the constitutional basis of Zimbabwe’s new presidential voting system firmly before the courts — and made the Constitutional Court the next institution to determine how far the country’s Parliament can go in reshaping the rules of presidential succession.
