CAA3 SHOWDOWN: ConCourt Grants Madhuku Two Days For Challenge Hearing
HARARE — Constitutional Court has set aside two days to hear the constitutional challenge to Constitution Amendment Act No. 3 (CAA3), with lawyer Professor Lovemore Madhuku saying the court has granted a full hearing for the case.
The case, CCZ 273/26, has been brought by six liberation war veterans — Reuben Zulu, Godfrey Gurira, Shoorai Nyamagodo, Joseph Chinyangare, Digmore Knowledge Ndiya and Joseph Chinguwa — represented by Madhuku, Advocate Lewis Uriri and Tawanda Zhuwarara.
The application challenges the central provision of Constitution of Zimbabwe Amendment (No. 3) Act, 2026, signed into law by President Emmerson Mnangagwa on July 7 and published as Act No. 6 of 2026.
Under CAA3, the President is no longer elected directly by registered voters but by members of the Senate and National Assembly sitting jointly, and presidential and parliamentary terms are extended from five to seven years. The Act also provides for 10 additional senators appointed by the President.
The war veterans argue that Parliament cannot remove the direct right of ordinary citizens to elect the President without a referendum, as required under Section 328 of the Constitution.
Their first application for direct access to the Constitutional Court — permission to bring the challenge straight to the apex court instead of starting at the High Court — was heard on September 22 by a three-judge bench headed by Deputy Chief Justice Paddington Garwe, sitting with Justices Rita Makarau and Chinembiri Bhunu. Judgment was reserved.
The State, through Advocate Sylvester Hashiti representing President Mnangagwa, Justice Minister Ziyambi Ziyambi and the Attorney-General, opposed direct access, arguing the applicants should have gone to the High Court first and that CAA3 is “irreversible” having completed all legislative stages.
Madhuku has argued that exceptional national importance justifies direct access.
“The matter which we want to be determined by this court is that you cannot take away the right of ordinary citizens to vote directly for the president without a referendum,” Madhuku told reporters outside the court.
Madhuku added that there are efforts to seek livestream access because the cases are “of national interest.
If direct access is granted, the court is expected to hear the substantive challenge over two full days — a sign of the weight the apex court is attaching to one of five pending challenges to CAA3.
Four other related cases were recently removed from the roll pending determination of how the matters will be consolidated.
The provision at the heart of the fight is Section 328(7) — the “no-benefit rule” which says an amendment extending the time a person may hold public office does not apply to the incumbent.
Opponents argue CAA3’s transitional clause attempts to override that protection without a referendum required under Section 328(9).