Mnangagwa term limit challenge begins as new Chief Justice blocks media coverage

Journalists have been barred from providing live coverage inside the Constitutional Court during the hearing of a potentially far-reaching constitutional challenge linked to Zimbabwe’s controversial Constitutional Amendment Bill No. 3 (CAB 3) which seeks to extend President Emmerson Mnangagwa’s term of office beyond the constitutionally prescribed two-term limit.

The hearing, which commenced in Harare on Wednesday, involves a challenge brought by war veterans and civic actors Reuben Zulu, Godfrey Gurira, Shoorai Nyamangondo, Joseph Chinyangare, Digmore Ndiya and Joseph Chinguwa against Mnangagwa and Attorney-General Virginia Mabiza.

In a letter issued by the Constitutional Court of Zimbabwe on May 19, 2026, the court dismissed an application by Sources Media Network seeking permission to conduct live courtroom coverage of the proceedings.

The letter, referenced CCZ8/26 and addressed to Atherstone & Cook Legal Practitioners representing Sources Media Network, stated that the request had been placed before Chief Justice Elizabeth Gwaunza following an urgent application ahead of the hearing scheduled for May 20.

According to the court, a case management meeting was held on May 19, after which the Chief Justice concluded that “no sufficient basis has been demonstrated to warrant the granting of the request for live coverage inside the courtroom.”

The constitutional challenge itself centres on CAB 3, a proposed amendment bill that critics say could fundamentally alter Zimbabwe’s constitutional order and democratic safeguards.

Among the contested proposals are provisions that opponents say would effectively extend President Mnangagwa’s tenure by two years and remove the direct election of the president by citizens, transferring that responsibility to Parliament.

The applicants argue that the proposed amendments violate constitutional principles and accuse Mnangagwa of failing in his constitutional duty to protect and uphold the Constitution when Cabinet approved the bill earlier this year.

Court papers filed before the Constitutional Court show that the government is opposing the application, arguing that the matter is premature because the bill has not yet completed the parliamentary legislative process.

The Attorney-General’s Office has maintained that the courts should not interfere with Parliament’s law-making functions before the bill becomes law and argues that the Constitution expressly allows amendments.

The applicants further argue that some of the proposed changes would ordinarily require a referendum and accuse the President of improperly presiding over Cabinet discussions involving measures directly affecting his political future.

The litigants are seeking an order barring Mnangagwa from signing, assenting to, promulgating or advancing CAB 3 or similar measures.

Beyond the disputed presidential term extension, CAB 3 also proposes sweeping institutional changes, including increasing presidentially appointed senators from 10 to 90, transferring voter registration functions from the Zimbabwe Electoral Commission to the Registrar-General, establishing a new Zimbabwe Electoral Delimitation Commission, altering judicial appointment procedures for some judges and abolishing or merging constitutional commissions such as the Gender Commission and the National Peace and Reconciliation Commission.

The applicants have also attached previous public statements by Mnangagwa in which he reportedly indicated he would not seek a term extension, arguing that the current constitutional push contradicts those assurances.

The case is widely viewed as one of the most significant constitutional disputes in recent years because of its potential implications for presidential term limits, judicial independence, electoral governance and the balance of power in Zimbabwe.

Prominent journalist Hopewell Chin’ono has argued that the case will serve as a litmus test of whether the courts are independent enough to restrain the executive from the overaccumulation of power.

“The case is important to Zimbabweans because it touches directly on how power is exercised and limited in the country. Constitutional amendments affect citizens far beyond politicians, determining how long leaders can remain in office, how independent institutions function and whether constitutional safeguards can be changed to benefit those in power.

“For many Zimbabweans, today’s hearing is therefore not just a legal battle but a broader test of whether the Constitution can effectively restrain executive power and whether the courts are prepared to intervene in politically sensitive constitutional disputes,” Chin’ono stated.

The bill is currently before the Parliament where MPs are expected to debate it soon after public submissions are assessed by relevant departments within the National Assembly.

Within Zanu-PF and government circles, the bill has triggered sharp factional battles.

Vice President Constantino Chiwenga, who has been widely regarded as the front-runner to succeed President Emmerson Mnangagwa since the 2017 military coup, is reportedly opposed to the bill. He is said to have the backing of several Cabinet ministers, a section of war veterans and other party members.

Civil society organisations and church groups, including the Zimbabwe Catholic Bishops’ Conference, have also voiced their opposition to the bill.