Legal team challenges Parliamentary election of Zimbabwe President

by Staff reporter



A team of prominent Zimbabwean lawyers led by Professor Lovemore Madhuku, Dr Lewis Uriri and Tawanda Zhuwarara is today challenging the constitutional changes that replaced the direct election of the President with a parliamentary voting system.

The lawyers are representing six war veterans who have approached the Constitutional Court seeking direct access to challenge the new electoral model introduced under the Constitution of Zimbabwe Amendment (No. 3) Act, 2026.


The Constitutional Court has set September 22, 2026 for the hearing of the application, which is registered under case number CCZ 273/26. The applicants are Reuben Zulu, Godfrey Gurira, Shoorai Nyamagodo, Joseph Chinyangare, Digmore Knowledge Ndiya and Joseph Chinguwa.

Madhuku confirmed that the latest case is separate from an earlier challenge brought by the same applicants against the proposed extension of President Emmerson Mnangagwa's tenure.


“The same applicants, the six war veterans, whom we previously represented challenging the President's proposed term extension under Constitutional Amendment Bill No.3 (CAB3), which is now law, are going to court today to seek direct access to ConCourt to challenge the new electoral model of electing the President through parliament, not by direct vote, without first going through a referendum to approve the change,” Madhuku said.


He said the applicants would argue that Parliament could not remove the direct presidential vote without first obtaining approval through a referendum.

“This is different from the previous case,” he said.

Under the new Section 92 introduced by Amendment No. 3, the President is elected by members of Parliament sitting jointly as the Senate and National Assembly. A candidate must secure more than half of the valid votes cast, with a run-off required if no candidate obtains a majority.

Under the previous system, registered voters directly elected the President during national elections.

The constitutional changes also extend the terms of the President and Parliament from five to seven years and increase the size of the Senate from 80 to 90 members, including 10 members appointed by the President on the basis of professional skills and other competencies.

The legal challenge centres on whether changing the method of electing the President amounts to an alteration of protected political rights requiring a referendum under Section 328 of the Constitution.

The applicants are expected to argue that the right of citizens to vote in presidential elections is protected under the Bill of Rights and that replacing the direct presidential vote with a parliamentary election fundamentally changes the way that right is exercised.

Critics of Amendment No. 3 argue that Parliament cannot make such a fundamental alteration through the ordinary constitutional amendment procedure without first obtaining approval from voters.


They contend that Section 328 provides additional safeguards for certain entrenched constitutional provisions and that changes affecting citizens' political rights cannot be achieved simply through a two-thirds parliamentary majority.

The applicants' case, however, is specifically focused on the removal of the direct presidential vote rather than the broader dispute over the extension of Mnangagwa's tenure.

The Government and supporters of the amendment have taken a different legal position.

During parliamentary debate, Justice Minister Ziyambi Ziyambi argued that the amendments did not amend Chapter 4 of the Constitution, which contains the Declaration of Rights, nor Section 328 itself.

He said the referendum requirement was triggered by the specific constitutional provisions identified in Section 328 rather than by consequences that might be said to flow from amendments to other sections.

“The Bill reforms the method of election by amending section 92, which sits in Chapter 5. It is not to amend Chapter 4, the Declaration of Rights, nor section 328 itself,” Ziyambi argued during the parliamentary debate.

Government proponents therefore maintain that the amendments could be passed through Parliament using the constitutional procedure applicable to provisions that are not subject to the referendum requirement.

The amendment was subsequently enacted as the Constitution of Zimbabwe Amendment (No. 3) Act, 2026. The legislation expressly provides for the President to be elected by Parliament rather than directly by voters.

The dispute over the presidential election model comes against the backdrop of wider constitutional changes contained in Amendment No. 3.

Among other provisions, the legislation extends the presidential and parliamentary terms from five to seven years and provides that the amended presidential term provision applies to the continuation in office of the incumbent, notwithstanding Section 328(7).

Those provisions have already generated separate legal challenges.

The latest application will therefore require the Constitutional Court to consider a narrower but potentially significant constitutional question: whether Parliament was constitutionally entitled to replace the direct election of the President with an election by Parliament without first putting that change to a national referendum.

The court's decision could have implications for the operation of Zimbabwe's electoral system and the constitutional relationship between Parliament and the electorate.

For now, the competing interpretations remain sharply divided. The applicants argue that the change affects a fundamental political right and therefore required a referendum, while supporters of the amendment maintain that Section 92 could be altered through the parliamentary constitutional amendment procedure because the amendment does not expressly alter the Declaration of Rights or Section 328 itself.

Source - online