Yesha
Senior Member
- Jan 28, 2026
- 117
- 47
Former Binga North legislator Prince Dubeko Sibanda has approached Zimbabwe’s Constitutional Court in a new legal challenge against parts of the recently enacted Constitution of Zimbabwe Amendment Act No. 6 of 2026, arguing that the law unlawfully benefits leaders and lawmakers currently in office.
Sibanda, through his lawyers Mbidzo Muchadehama & Makoni, filed the application on July 11, citing Parliament, President Emmerson Mnangagwa and the Minister of Justice, Legal and Parliamentary Affairs as respondents.
The challenge targets sections of the amendment law that allow Zimbabwe’s presidential and parliamentary terms to increase from five to seven years and apply those extensions to the current office holders.
Sibanda argues that this goes against Section 328(7) of the Constitution, which prevents constitutional amendments that extend the term of a person already holding that office.
The former legislator stressed that his challenge is not against the decision to introduce seven-year terms, but against applying the changes to the current president and Parliament.
“This is not about whether a seven-year term is good or bad,” Sibanda argued. “It is about whether the Constitution allows an amendment to give an advantage to people already holding office.”
The amendment introduced new clauses stating that the extended terms would apply “notwithstanding section 328(7)” — effectively overriding the constitutional provision that protects against incumbent leaders benefiting from term extensions.
Sibanda argues that Parliament cannot bypass constitutional safeguards by simply adding such wording into another section of the Constitution.
He warned that allowing this approach could weaken constitutional protections in future.
“If this is allowed, Parliament could avoid other constitutional requirements by simply adding ‘notwithstanding’ clauses,” he argued, saying this would undermine the principle that the Constitution is the highest law.
The legal challenge comes after Sibanda’s earlier attempt to stop the amendment while it was still a Bill before Parliament. That application was dismissed after the Constitutional Court ruled that the matter was premature because the Bill had not yet become law.
Sibanda says the situation has now changed because the amendment has been passed and is officially part of Zimbabwe’s law.
He is not seeking to overturn the entire amendment act. Instead, he wants the court to remove the sections that apply the extended terms to the sitting president and current members of the Senate and National Assembly.
The government and other respondents have 21 days to respond to the application. If they fail to oppose it, the case could proceed as an unopposed matter.
The challenge adds another legal battle to the ongoing national debate over Constitution Amendment Act No. 6 of 2026, which critics say could allow President Mnangagwa and the current Parliament to remain in office beyond the original constitutional timelines, while supporters argue the reforms are part of broader institutional changes.
Sibanda, through his lawyers Mbidzo Muchadehama & Makoni, filed the application on July 11, citing Parliament, President Emmerson Mnangagwa and the Minister of Justice, Legal and Parliamentary Affairs as respondents.
The challenge targets sections of the amendment law that allow Zimbabwe’s presidential and parliamentary terms to increase from five to seven years and apply those extensions to the current office holders.
Sibanda argues that this goes against Section 328(7) of the Constitution, which prevents constitutional amendments that extend the term of a person already holding that office.
The former legislator stressed that his challenge is not against the decision to introduce seven-year terms, but against applying the changes to the current president and Parliament.
“This is not about whether a seven-year term is good or bad,” Sibanda argued. “It is about whether the Constitution allows an amendment to give an advantage to people already holding office.”
The amendment introduced new clauses stating that the extended terms would apply “notwithstanding section 328(7)” — effectively overriding the constitutional provision that protects against incumbent leaders benefiting from term extensions.
Sibanda argues that Parliament cannot bypass constitutional safeguards by simply adding such wording into another section of the Constitution.
He warned that allowing this approach could weaken constitutional protections in future.
“If this is allowed, Parliament could avoid other constitutional requirements by simply adding ‘notwithstanding’ clauses,” he argued, saying this would undermine the principle that the Constitution is the highest law.
The legal challenge comes after Sibanda’s earlier attempt to stop the amendment while it was still a Bill before Parliament. That application was dismissed after the Constitutional Court ruled that the matter was premature because the Bill had not yet become law.
Sibanda says the situation has now changed because the amendment has been passed and is officially part of Zimbabwe’s law.
He is not seeking to overturn the entire amendment act. Instead, he wants the court to remove the sections that apply the extended terms to the sitting president and current members of the Senate and National Assembly.
The government and other respondents have 21 days to respond to the application. If they fail to oppose it, the case could proceed as an unopposed matter.
The challenge adds another legal battle to the ongoing national debate over Constitution Amendment Act No. 6 of 2026, which critics say could allow President Mnangagwa and the current Parliament to remain in office beyond the original constitutional timelines, while supporters argue the reforms are part of broader institutional changes.
