ar Veterans Drag Mnangagwa To ConCourt Over ‘Illegal’ Amendment Bid, Want Him Permanently Banned From Signing It
Six war veterans have filed an urgent application at the Constitutional Court against President Emmerson Mnangagwa, accusing him of violating his oath of office by pushing through a controversial amendment designed to extend his rule.
The court application, filed on Monday, 16 February 2026, by the veterans through legal practitioner Professor Lovemore Madhuku, seeks to have the Cabinet’s approval of the Constitutional Amendment Bill Number 3 declared “null and void” and wants the President permanently barred from signing it into law.
‘President Breached His Constitutional Obligations’
The six applicants—Reuben Zulu, Godfrey Gurira, Shoorai Nyamangodo, Joseph Chinyangare, Digmore Knowledge Ndiya, and Joseph Chinguwa—argue that President Mnangagwa has failed to fulfil constitutional obligations imposed upon him by the Constitution.
According to the court papers, the veterans contend that the President breached Section 90(1) of the Constitution, which compels him to “uphold, defend, obey and respect the Constitution as the supreme law of the nation.”
“The constitutional obligations in question, that is, the constitutional obligations I contend have not been fulfilled by the 1st Respondent and therefore forming the basis of this application are: The constitutional obligation to uphold, defend, obey and respect the Constitution as the supreme law of the nation and ensuring that its obligations are faithfully observed. This is in section 90(1) of the Constitution,” the founding papers read.
The veterans further argue that Mnangagwa contravened Section 90(2)(b) by failing to “recognise and respect the ideals and values of the liberation struggle.”
The applicants are seeking a declaration that, because the President presided over the Cabinet meeting that approved the bill, the entire process is legally invalid.
“It is declared that in presiding over and/or chairing Cabinet deliberations and processes pertaining to Constitutional Amendment Bill No. 3 and being party to the approval by Cabinet of the aforesaid Constitutional Amendment Bill No. 3, the 1st Respondent failed to fulfill his constitutional obligations set out in sections 90(1); 90(2)(b) and 196(2) of the Constitution of Zimbabwe, 2013,” the draft order states.
Veterans Seek To Block Term Extension
The application also takes aim at Section 196(2) of the Constitution, which requires the President to conduct himself as a public officer so as to avoid any conflict between his personal interests and his public duties.
The war veterans have asked the court to issue a sweeping declaration that would render any future attempts at term extension invalid. They want the Constitutional Court to rule that any amendment designed to benefit a sitting president is automatically void.
“As a just and equitable order under section 175(6)(b) of the Constitution, it is declared that any constitutional amendment, transitional arrangement, or continuation-in-office mechanism that has the purpose or effect of extending the tenure of, or conferring incumbency benefit upon, a person who held the office of President before the amendment, is invalid and of no force or effect in respect of that incumbent by operation of s 328(7) of the Constitution,” the court papers read.
This paragraph directly targets suspicions that the Constitutional Amendment Bill No. 3 is a vehicle for extending the President’s tenure beyond the constitutional limit.
The veterans have specifically requested the court to interdict the President from signing the bill into law.
“As a further just and equitable order under section 175(6)(b) of the Constitution, the 1st Respondent is interdicted from signing, assenting to, promulgating, advancing, or otherwise giving executive effect to Constitutional Amendment Bill No. 3, or any substantially similar instrument, in any manner inconsistent with this Order and the Constitution, including ss 67 and 328,” the applicants pleaded.
The case has been brought in terms of Section 167(2)(d) of the Constitution and Rule 32(1) of the Constitutional Court Rules, 2025, promulgated under Statutory Instrument 19 of 2025. At the heart of the court papers is the application’s claim that the President has failed to fulfil the constitutional obligations imposed upon him by the Constitution.
By operation of Rule 26(1)(d) of the Constitutional Court Rules, the application does not require leave and falls squarely within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Constitutional Court.
The applicants are not seeking any order as to costs.
The nation now awaits the response from the President and the Attorney General of Zimbabwe, and the eventual hearing before the Honourable Justices of the Constitutional Court.