A challenge to the Zanu PF resolution to extend President Emmerson Mnangagwa’s term of office has been thrown into chaos after Speaker of the National Assembly Jacob Mudenda declared the application premature.
Mudenda is
cited as a second respondent in a matter filed by Moreprecision Muzadzi and
Pardon Gambakwe, who are seeking to stop Zanu PF from amending the Constitution
to allow the extension of Mnangagwa's stay in power by two years.
Mnangagwa,
Justice minister Ziyambi Ziyambi, the Zimbabwe Electoral Commission, the
Zimbabwe Human Rights Commission and the Attorney-General are also cited as
respondents.
The application
follows a Zanu PF resolution, made at its two most recent conferences, to
extend the President’s term to 2030.
In their
application, Muzadzi and Gambakwe are asking the Constitutional Court to
declare the Zanu PF 2030 resolution
“unconstitutional and invalid”.
They also want
the court to compel Mudenda and Ziyambi to desist from implementing or
advancing the resolution and affirm that the President’s final term ends in
2028, in accordance with section 95.
The applicants
also want the court to reinforce that any attempt to alter presidential term
limits should follow formal constitutional amendment procedures outlined under
chapter 16 of the Constitution.
In his opposing
affidavit, Mudenda described the application as “frivolous and vexatious”,
arguing that the fears raised by the applicants are based on speculation rather
than concrete legal process.
“To the best of
my knowledge, no Constitutional Bill has been submitted to Cabinet,” Mudenda
said.
“No
Constitutional Bill has been gazetted in terms of section 328(3) of the
Constitution. No Constitutional Bill has been tabled before Parliament.
“Further, no
Constitutional Bill relating to the issues raised by the applicants has been
passed by Parliament. The averments are clearly based on hypothetical
scenarios.
“The court does
not entertain hypothetical situations, and clearly, it does not pass judgments
for academic purposes.”
“It is clearly
speculative and based on hypothetical scenarios.
“The applicants
are in dire need of legal representation. Their averments are bad at law and
are based on a hypothetical set of facts.”
Mudenda further
argued that the matter was not yet ready for judicial consideration.
“The matter is
not ripe for adjudication and rests on hypothetical scenarios,” he said.
“It, therefore,
has no prospects of success. The court has consistently held that it will not
entertain matters that are not ripe for determination.
“The second
respondent cannot be ordered, as prayed for in the main application, to
initiate the process of removing a sitting President under section 97 of the
Constitution.
“The
applicants’ case is premised entirely on a hypothetical situation that they
suggest might arise.
“Moreover,
section 97 does not confer upon the second respondent any power to institute
such a process.”
Meanwhile,
human rights activist Mbuso Fuzwayo and his pressure group Ibhetshu LikaZulu
have also filed a separate court application challenging the same resolution.
Fuzwayo and
Ibhetshu Likhazulu argued that any attempt to extend Mnangagwa’s term will be
unconstitutional and undermines the principles of democratic governance
enshrined in the 2013 Constitution. Newsday
0 comments:
Post a Comment