HARARE – Speaker of Parliament Jacob Mudenda has filed an opposing affidavit in the Constitutional Court of Zimbabwe, dismissing a challenge to potential constitutional amendments extending President Emmerson Mnangagwa’s term beyond 2028 as premature and frivolous, a move critics claim is a calculated effort to create a “façade of judicial approval” for the very extension he is defending.
In case CCZ 46/25, applicants Moreprecision Muzadzi and Pardon Gambakwe seek to block any such moves, citing Zanu-PF’s Resolution No. 1 from its 2024 conference, but Mudenda has argued no relevant bills have reached Cabinet, been gazetted under Section 328(3), or tabled in Parliament.
“To the best of my knowledge, no Constitutional Bill has been submitted to Cabinet. 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 Court does not deal with hypothetical situations and certainly it does not pass judgments for academic purposes,” read part of the court papers.
Mudenda, as third respondent, stated the application rested on unmaterialised events with no prospects of success.
He refuted demands to initiate presidential removal under Section 97, noting it grants him no such authority, and labels the case vexatious, urging dismissal with higher-scale costs.
The affidavit, sworn on November 19, 2025, and filed via Chihambakwe Mutizwa & Partners, was received by the court on November 21, 2025.
Muzadzi and Gambakwe argue Zanu-PF’s resolution violates Sections 56, 67, and 328 by threatening political rights, equal protection, and requiring a referendum for incumbent-benefiting term changes.
This echoes earlier filings by Mbuso Fuzwayo of Ibhetshu Likazulu, who secured direct access leave amid allegations of a charged political environment, including a petrol bombing at the SAPES offices.
Zanu-PF’s conference backed extending Mnangagwa’s tenure to 2030 for stability, prompting public protests Mudenda deems misguided.
The alleged objective of the applicants, sources claim, is to secure a court dismissal that could be cited as legal precedent for the term extension, thereby creating a facade of judicial approval.
Lynne Stactia, a political commentator on X argued that by “dismissing the FAKE opposition’s claims as mere noise and emphasising a lack of formal processes for constitutional change, Mudenda aims to create a narrative that legitimises the ED government’s actions.”
She added: “This approach effectively undermines dissenting voices within the country, suggesting that the real challenge to the ruling party is not a formal opposition, but rather chaotic internal disputes that threaten the stability necessary for the ED2030 agenda to be realised.
“By portraying Resolution No. 1 as a non-issue in a legal sense, Mudenda seeks to pave the way for a smoother implementation of policies aligned with the ED2030 framework, allowing the government to frame its agenda as having been challenged and ultimately vindicated in both legal and public spheres.”
