Zim GBC News | Political Correspondent
In a dramatic legal move, seven prominent opposition figures and civil society leaders have been hauled before the High Court following an urgent chamber application filed by Zanu-PF activist Talent Rusere, seeking to restrain them from “inciting public disorder” over the Constitution Amendment Bill (No. 3) of 2026.
The application, filed at the High Court in Harare under Case Number HC/26, names Tendai Biti, Jameson Timba, Lovemore Madhuku, Douglas Mwonzora, Job Sikhala, Jacob Ngarivhume and Fadzayi Mahere as the first to seventh respondents. Minister of Home Affairs and Cultural Heritage Hon. Kazembe Kazembe is cited as the eighth respondent.
Allegations of Misrepresentation
According to the court papers, Rusere alleges that the respondents are “willfully misrepresenting the Constitution Amendment Bill (No.3) of 2026 by claiming it requires a referendum, thereby inciting public alarm and disorder.”
The applicant contends that the Bill seeks to amend Sections 95 and 143 regarding election cycles and duration, which he argues are not “entrenched” provisions requiring a referendum under the Constitution.
The chamber application, filed in terms of Rule 60 of the High Court Rules, 2021, seeks a prohibitory interdict against the first to sixth respondents to restrain them from “inciting public disorder, manipulating the law for political gain, and undermining the Constitution of Zimbabwe.”
The Referendum Debate
The legal challenge comes amid intense public debate over whether the proposed constitutional amendments require approval through a national referendum.
Constitutional expert and Zanu-PF Secretary for Mines and Mining Development, Cde Paul Mangwana, has previously stated that the proposed amendments do not require a referendum. Speaking at a media briefing in Harare, Mangwana explained that the Constitution is clear on which areas require public referendums.
“We were very clear when we wrote this Constitution to say which areas we want protected from amendment by Parliament. So when a law specifies areas which are preserved for amendment, it means that any other parts of the Constitution which have not been protected can be amended by Parliament using a two-thirds majority,” Mangwana said .
He further addressed concerns surrounding the extension of the presidential term limit, explaining that a full term is defined as three years or more.
“If you want to amend beyond three years, that’s when you require a referendum. If it’s an amendment for a period of two years, you are not introducing a new term, so to speak” .
Political Context
The Constitution Amendment No. 3 Bill, which was gazetted on 17 February 2026 following Cabinet approval, proposes extending presidential and parliamentary terms from five to seven years . Clause 2 of the Bill repeals section 92 of the Constitution and substitutes it with a parliamentary process for electing the President, requiring a candidate to secure a majority vote in Parliament .
Zanu-PF has launched extensive public consultations on the Bill, with National Political Commissar Cde Munyaradzi Machacha stating that the party is “adding voice multipliers to ensure that Constitutional Amendment No. 3 Bill is not just a ZANU PF Resolution 1 Bill but a national law that will help Zimbabweans” .
Opposition Voices
However, critics have strongly contested the government’s position. The Zimbabwe Diaspora Vote Initiative (ZDVI) has called on President Mnangagwa to stop debate on the Bill and include a clause providing for a national referendum. In a petition, the organisation argued that amendments extending the length of time a person may hold public office must be subjected to a referendum .
Social justice advocate Tendai Ruben Mbofana has described attempts to rebrand the extension as a mere “election cycle adjustment” as a “deception.”
Writing in a recent analysis, Mbofana argued that Section 328(1) of the Constitution is unequivocal: a term-limit provision is “a provision of this Constitution which limits the length of time that a person may hold or occupy a public office” .
The retired generals and ex-combatants, represented by retired Air Marshal Henry Muchena, have also weighed in, demanding that the Bill be subjected to a national referendum. In a submission to Parliament, they warned that allowing MPs to elect a president on behalf of 17 million citizens would disenfranchise the population .
What’s Next
The respondents now have ten days from service of the application to file notices of opposition. Should they fail to do so, the matter will be decided by a judge in chambers without further notice.
The legal challenge adds another layer of complexity to an already heated national debate over the proposed constitutional changes, with both sides digging in on their positions regarding the need for a referendum.
For real-time alerts and updates, message us on WhatsApp:
+263 773 820 323
Follow us on social media:
· X (Twitter): @ZimGbc
· Instagram: @ZimGBCNews
· TikTok: @ZimGBCNews_01
· Facebook: Zim GBC News
· YouTube: Zim GBC News
For in-depth coverage, visit our website:
www.zimgbcnews.co.zw
Zim GBC News | Global News From An African Perspective©2026