ConCourt Reserves Judgment in War Veterans Direct Access Challenge to Electoral Amendment

By Staff Reporter

The Constitutional Court has reserved judgment in an urgent application brought by six liberation war veterans seeking direct access to the apex court to challenge the controversial Constitution of Zimbabwe Amendment (No. 3) Act of 2026.

Appearing before a three-judge panel led by Deputy Chief Justice Rita Makarau, sitting alongside Justice Elizabeth Gwaunza and Justice Bharat Patel, lead counsel Professor Lovemore Madhuku argued that the legal challenge carries such profound national significance that bypassing the High Court is both legally justified and imperative. New members who wish to receive reliable daily news updates from Ignite Media Zimbabwe should “follow” our channel on the link below:

The applicants, who fought in Zimbabwe’s liberation struggle, are attempting to overturn the newly enacted constitutional amendment on the grounds that it fundamentally alters the nation’s democratic architecture without the requisite public consent.

Central to Madhuku’s submission is the argument that the Amendment No. 3 Act effectively strips Zimbabwean citizens of their fundamental right to directly elect the President of the Republic. Under the contested legislative changes, the executive selection mechanism transitions away from a direct popular vote, shifting the mandate instead to a parliamentary or indirect system.

Madhuku emphasized to the bench that removing the direct presidential vote bypasses the electorate and severely undermines popular sovereignty. He contended that while Parliament enacted the amendment without holding a national referendum, the constitutional maneuver indirectly impacts the core political rights guaranteed under Chapter Four of the Constitution, which contains the fundamental Bill of Rights.

The legal team maintained that because Chapter Four explicitly safeguards the democratic rights of citizens to participate in peaceful political processes and choose their leadership, any structural change that diminishes those rights requires direct scrutiny from the highest court in the land.

Addressing the procedural requirement for direct access, Madhuku submitted that requiring the war veterans to initiate proceedings in the High Court would unnecessarily delay a matter of pressing national interest. He argued that the Constitutional Court possesses exclusive jurisdiction to determine whether Parliament exceeded its constitutional authority when it passed Amendment No. 3 without subjecting the changes to a popular vote.

Representing the respondents, state attorneys urged the bench to dismiss the application for direct access, arguing that the applicants had failed to demonstrate exceptional circumstances warranting an exemption from standard judicial hierarchy. The state contended that the High Court remains fully competent to assess constitutional validity in the first instance.

After hearing extensive oral arguments from both legal teams on Tuesday, Deputy Chief Justice Makarau announced that the bench had reserved its ruling on whether to grant direct access to the applicants. The reserved judgment leaves the implementation of the Constitution of Zimbabwe Amendment (No. 3) Act under intense legal scrutiny, as the nation awaits the court’s decision on whether the apex tribunal will hear the merits of the landmark case.