By Staff Reporter
A top lawyer with known links to President Emmerson Mnangagwa has been visiting Constitutional Court judges at their homes and summoning some to his residence for private one-on-one meetings, raising concerns over possible attempts to influence judicial officers ahead of hearings to a series of challenges to Constitutional Amendment Act No. 3 (CAA3).
The meetings come just days before the apex court is due to hear challenges to the controversial constitutional changes, with legal battles over the legislation set to put Zimbabwe’s judicial independence and constitutional order under intense scrutiny.
According to well-placed sources, the lawyer, who is known for his connections to the highest political offices in the country, has previously been linked to allegations involving cash payments to consultants associated with CAA3.
“He has recently had private one-on-one meetings with a number of Constitutional Court judges, including at his own residence,” a source said.
The sources said the alleged engagements have triggered concern in political and legal circles, with fears that judicial officers could be subjected to undue influence ahead of cases with potentially far-reaching consequences for Zimbabwe’s constitutional and electoral framework.
The Constitutional Court is due to hear a challenge linked to war veteran Reuben Zulu and others on Tuesday, while MDC leader Douglas Mwonzora’s challenge to the enacted law is scheduled for September 23.
Zulu and five other war veterans , Godfrey Gurira, Shoorai Nyamangodo, Joseph Chinyangare, Digmore Knowledge Ndiya and Joseph Chinguwa, have been at the forefront of legal efforts to stop CAB3.
Their earlier Constitutional Court application challenged Mnangagwa’s role in the Cabinet process that approved the Bill, which he signed into law in July.
They argued that the President had breached his constitutional obligations by chairing and participating in Cabinet deliberations on proposed amendments from which he stood to benefit, particularly changes affecting presidential and electoral terms.
The applicants relied on sections 90 and 196 of the Constitution, among other provisions.
However, the Constitutional Court dismissed that application in June, ruling that it did not meet the legal requirements necessary for the court to exercise its original jurisdiction.
The court did not determine the substantive merits of the war veterans’ allegations.
Zulu subsequently pursued another legal route, challenging the parliamentary passage of the amendments over allegations that MPs were offered gifts and other inducements to support the legislation.
In that case, Zulu argued that alleged payments and luxury vehicles given to legislators compromised the parliamentary vote and asked the High Court to halt the certification and further processing of the Bill.
His papers alleged that two legislators received Toyota Fortuners and US$50 000 from controversial businessman Wicknell Chivayo after backing the constitutional amendments. Those allegations are contested and have not been established by a court.
Zulu argued that Parliament should not be allowed to treat a vote allegedly influenced by undisclosed benefits as valid without an investigation into the alleged inducements.
Mwonzora’s challenge takes a different route, focusing principally on the right to vote and the constitutional requirement for a referendum.
The MDC argues that CAA3 fundamentally alters citizens’ voting rights by changing the method of electing the President.
Under the amendment, the President will no longer be elected directly by registered voters but by a joint sitting of the National Assembly and Senate.
Mwonzora argues that this effectively removes ordinary citizens’ direct participation in presidential elections and therefore affects a right protected under the Constitution’s Bill of Rights.
The MDC maintains that because CAA3 affects the right to vote, it could not lawfully be enacted through parliamentary majorities alone and should first have been subjected to a national referendum in terms of section 328 of the Constitution.
The party also challenges the extension of the terms of the President, Parliament and local authorities from five to seven years, arguing that the changes have constitutional consequences that require direct approval by voters.
The Constitutional Court has set September 23 for the hearing of Mwonzora’s case before a full bench.
The amendments were first introduced in February this year and proposed sweeping changes to Zimbabwe’s constitutional and electoral architecture.
Among other provisions, it sought to replace the direct election of the President with an indirect election by Parliament, extend the terms of the President, MPs and councillors from five to seven years, increase the size of the Senate and make changes to the administration of the voters’ roll and electoral delimitation.
The Bill was gazetted on February 16, shortly after Cabinet approved it, setting in motion a process that culminated in its passage by Parliament and its signing into law by Mnangagwa on July 7.
The speed of the process attracted criticism from constitutional lawyers, civic groups and opposition politicians, who questioned whether there was sufficient time for meaningful public participation on legislation that fundamentally altered the country’s supreme law.
Parliament held public hearings across the country beginning on March 30. While officials said the consultations were broad and inclusive, civic organisations raised serious concerns about the conduct of some of the meetings.
The forthcoming court battles, therefore, place the constitutionality of the legislation, the integrity of the amendment process and the scope of citizens’ voting rights squarely before the Constitutional Court.
Against that backdrop, allegations that a politically connected lawyer has been privately meeting judges have added another layer of concern.
