#ThrowbackThursday Who still remembers this interview between Oscar Pambuka and Prophet Talent Madungwe...ππΏπ―βοΈ
Follow Our WhatsApp Channel:
https://t.co/N7thWVcn68
π€π¨ππ¦π§ππ’π‘π¦ π’π‘ ππ’π‘π¦π§ππ§π¨π§ππ’π‘ππ ππ’π¨π₯π§ ππ¨πππ ππ‘π§π¦ π’π‘ ππππ―.
Today, the Constitutional Court of Zimbabwe decided on two matters.
The first was the case brought by the war veterans, who asked the Constitutional Court to determine whether the President had breached his duty to uphold the Constitution by sitting in a Cabinet meeting that initiated and facilitated Constitutional Amendment Bill No. 3 when he stands to benefit personally from the extension as the incumbent.
The Constitutional Court ruled that it would not entertain the application because the duties of the President that the applicants deemed to have been infringed, were too broad and not specific enough for the Court to exercise its exclusive jurisdiction in terms of Section 167.
This was due to the fact that the applicants had come directly to the Constitutional Court without first going through the lower courts, which would have established and articulated such duties more specifically through legislation.
Accordingly, the Court indicated that the duties and alleged infringements need to be ventilated and tested in the lower courts before the matter can be brought before the apex court.
Section 167(3) tasks the Constitutional Court with deciding whether the conduct of the President and Parliament is constitutional. According to Madhuku, who was representing the war veterans, they respect the judgment and will immediately file the same case in the High Court.
Being a legal novice, I am struggling to understand how the Constitutional Court, which is specifically tasked with deciding whether the President or Parliament has upheld the Constitution, failed to make a determination in what appears to be a clear-cut constitutional matter, considering that the Constitution is the primary law in Zimbabwe and articulates the duties of the President, while all other statutes cascade from it.
I do appreciate the fact that presidential duties are defined and specified in a number of separate statutes, such as the Presidential Powers Act, the Defence Act, and the Public Entities Corporate Governance Act. However, that does not negate the fact that all these statutes are derived from, and expand upon, the duties espoused in the Constitution.
Therefore, I struggle to see how laws that are subordinate to the Constitution can provide more specific definitions over and above those already inherent in the Constitution itself.
The second application was that of Prince Dubeko Sibanda, who had taken Parliament to court on the basis that it should not waste time discussing the Bill because, in his view, it is unconstitutional.
Justice Patel articulated that it was still premature for the Court to make a determination on the issue until Parliament had gone through its legislative processes, so as to avoid judicial overreach and maintain the separation of powers.
As a consequence, Prince Dubeko Sibanda has resolved to wait and see whether the House rejects the Bill. Should it fail to do so, he intends to relaunch the same application.
I am left ambivalent by the judgments because, as I stated above, the judgment in the Dubeko case appears legally logical and consistent with the principle of separation of powers. However, what I am struggling to wrap my head around is why the Constitutional Court needs to wait for Parliament to spend weeks deliberating on a Bill before determining whether it is constitutional, and whether Parliament should be expending resources on it in the first place.
Even more perturbing is the war veterans' case because, as noted above, the Constitution of Zimbabwe is the primary law that determines the duties of the President, while all other statutes derive and elaborate on those duties. As such, one would expect the Constitutional Court to retain the prerogative of determining whether the President has upheld both the Constitution and his constitutional duties.
Both judgments give the impression thatβ¦..
The issue was very simple Sekuru Moyo. It was whether I asked for a vehicle or not. But you are now dragging me in mud with accusations dzekurima vakadzi, if I respond you won't like it!
ππ£π’ππ’ππ¬ π§π’ π§ππ πππ₯π¦π§ ππππ¬ ππ ππ π π‘ππ‘ππππͺπ ππ‘π π π¬ π£π’π¦ππ§ππ’π‘ π’π‘ ππππ―.
I apologize to Amai Mnangagwa, the President and First Family for making unsubstantiated claims. I also articulate my position and way forward on CAB3.
CG Mutamba, the @PoliceZimbabwe bossβ¦ your randomly-picked βtraffic policeβ (probably untrained expertly in road traffic duties) milking motorists on the roads. For funβΌοΈ
You promised to stop the rot when you got the job. We the long-suffering βmembers of the publicβ awaiting your decisive action against corrupted elements within your police service that you lead.
EVERYTHING RISES & FALLS ON LEADERSHIP. The buck stops with you sir.
No trained traffic cop should EVER solicit or receive a bribeβΌοΈRoot out, mercilessly, the rotten elements in your ZRP. Cause yes you can.
ENOUGH IS ENOUGHβοΈ
Czech Republic and South Korea, I believe you understand the assignment. Two more matches, with the entire Africa behind you, and South Africa will be on the first flight out of North America to protect their jobs back home. π
'We Have No Mandate to Extend Our Terms' - Hon Martin Mureri Rejects Bill No. 3
Masvingo Urban MP Advocate Martin Mureri strongly opposed Constitutional Amendment Bill No. 3 during parliamentary debate on 11 June 2026.
In his contribution to the debate, Mureri argued that Members of Parliament do not have a mandate to extend their own terms of office without first consulting the people who elected them. He also raised concerns about the role of traditional leaders in politics, the public consultation process surrounding the Bill, and proposals affecting presidential and parliamentary terms.
The MP said many residents of Masvingo Urban had expressed opposition to the Bill and called for constitutional principles and democratic accountability to be upheld.
This video contains highlights/full coverage of Hon. Martin Mureri's contribution during the parliamentary debate on Constitutional Amendment Bill No. 3.
What are your views on Constitutional Amendment Bill No. 3? Share your thoughts in the comments below.
π Subscribe for more Zimbabwe political news and parliamentary updates.
π Like, comment, and share this video.
π Follow Change Radio Zimbabwe for breaking news and analysis.
#Zimbabwe #MartinMureri #ConstitutionalAmendmentBill3 #ParliamentOfZimbabwe #MasvingoUrban #ZimbabwePolitics #Constitution #Democracy #ChangeRadioZimbabwe #BillNo3 #ZimbabweNews