HARARE-(MaraviPost)-Zimbabwe’s Constitutional Court has postponed a landmark hearing due today, pushing it to 18 November 2026 to allow for the reconstitution of the bench.
The postponement came after Professor Lovemore Madhuku argued that two of the judges sitting to hear the case were conflicted, as they were appointed via Constitutional Amendment Act No. 3 (CAA3).
Prof Madhuku, arguing on behalf of National Constitutional Assembly (NCA) member Vhurande Mahlupheko, requested that the court be reconstituted.
The case challenges CAA3, formerly Constitutional Amendment Bill No. 3 (CAB3). Among the provisions being challenged is the increase in the number of Constitutional Court judges from seven to nine.
“The two additional judges appointed under the contested provisions cannot sit in judgment over a matter in which they have a direct interest,” Madhuku argued.
His argument rests on a basic principle of natural justice: no one should be a judge in their own cause. If the provision that created their posts is itself under challenge, they cannot be part of the bench that determines whether it is constitutional.
Speaking to the press following the postponement, Madhuku said the court accepted that the objection had to be resolved before the merits could be heard, and postponed the matter to allow a differently constituted bench to be put in place.
It is not yet clear who will sit on 18 November, or whether the court will first deal with the recusal question alone before turning to the substantive challenge. By the time of publication, court officials had not issued a written order setting out the new composition.
WHAT IS BEING CHALLENGED
CAA3, now Act No. 6 of 2026, extended presidential and parliamentary terms from five to seven years, replaced direct election of the President with election by Parliament, expanded presidential powers over the Senate, and restructured parts of the electoral and judicial framework.
The Government through the Minister of Legal Affairs, Ziyambi Ziyambi says Parliament acted within its amending powers, and that the changes are structural reforms meant to improve governance and stability.
Opponents, including opposition parties, war veterans, constitutional lawyers and civic groups, say the amendments were passed without a referendum, despite affecting rights protected by the Constitution, including the right of citizens to elect a President of their choice.
They rely heavily on Section 328(7), which bars amendments that extend the term of office of an incumbent from applying to that incumbent. They argue the new law tries to bypass that safeguard by inserting “notwithstanding” clauses.
On the bench expansion specifically, critics say enlarging the court while expanding presidential power over judicial appointments undermines judicial independence.
The Government says a larger bench is needed to deal with workload and improve efficiency.
WHY THE DELAY MATTERS
The postponement matters for two reasons, according to critics.
First, time is politically sensitive. Several challenges to CAA3 are already pending, with other hearings scheduled later this month. Any delay affects the timetable for the rest, and ultimately affects certainty over the rules that will govern the next general election, now due in 2030 under the amended framework.
Second, it goes to public confidence in the court itself.
The Constitutional Court is Zimbabwe’s highest court on constitutional matters. Its decisions are final. For its rulings on CAA3 to be accepted, the process must be seen to be fair, impartial and free from conflict of interest.
If judges who owe their appointment to a contested provision sit on the case, any judgment — whichever way it goes — would be open to attack. By postponing to reconstitute the bench, the court has signalled it intends to confront that question rather than allow it to hang over the proceedings.
WHAT HAPPENS NEXT
When the matter returns on 18 November, the court is expected to first settle who can properly sit.
Only after that threshold issue is resolved can it hear full argument on the substantive challenge.
Lawyers for the applicants have indicated they will insist the two additional judges recuse themselves. Lawyers for the respondents are expected to argue the judges were validly appointed under a law that remains in force until struck down, and that they are entitled to sit unless a formal recusal order is made.
The outcome of that preliminary battle could shape the rest of the litigation. A ruling that the two judges cannot sit would strengthen the applicants’ argument that the amendment creating their posts is problematic. A ruling that they can sit would allow the case to proceed with a full nine-member bench.
For now, the constitutional challenge continues — but without a hearing, without argument, and without a decision.
The postponement leaves the contested provisions in force, and leaves Zimbabwe waiting for a definitive ruling on one of the most consequential constitutional disputes in the country’s recent history.
Leave a Reply