An activist has filed an urgent application with the High Court seeking a declaratory order that key provisions of the Constitution of Zimbabwe Amendment (No. 3) Bill cannot be enacted without a national referendum, arguing that the proposed changes affect entrenched constitutional provisions.
Youngerson Matete, has cited five respondents in the application: the Parliament of Zimbabwe, the President of the of Zimbabwe in his official capacity, the Minister of Justice, Legal and Parliamentary Affairs, the Zimbabwe Electoral Commission (ZEC), and the Attorney-General of Zimbabwe.
In his founding affidavit, issued at the High Court on 28 May 2026, Matete argues that Clauses 4, 9 and 10 of the Amendment Bill fall within the ambit of provisions protected under section 328 of the Constitution, which requires that certain entrenched provisions cannot be amended without approval through a national referendum.
“The Constitution must be interpreted generously, purposively, and in a manner that promotes constitutionalism, democratic participation, and the sovereignty of the people,” Matete states in the application.
He further submits “Parliament’s power to amend the Constitution is not absolute and must be exercised strictly within the limits imposed by the Constitution itself” adding that “any constitutional amendment process undertaken in violation of section 328 is unconstitutional, unlawful, and invalid ab initio.”
The Amendment Bill, gazetted on 16 February 2026, proposes extending presidential and parliamentary terms from five to seven years and replacing direct presidential elections with a parliamentary selection process, among other changes.
Matete seeks a declaratory order with the following key prayers:
-A declaration that Clauses 4, 9 and 10 of the Bill fall within protected provisions under section 328 and cannot lawfully be amended without a national referendum
-A declaration that any attempt to enact these clauses without first submitting proposed amendments to a national referendum would be “unconstitutional, unlawful, and of no force or effect”
-An interdict restraining Parliament, the President and Justice Minister from taking further steps towards enactment or implementation unless and until the amendments have been approved in a national referendum
-A direction to ZEC, “upon lawful proclamation and in accordance with the Constitution,” to facilitate and conduct a national referendum should the amendments be passed by Parliament
Matete asserts he possesses “a direct and substantial interest in the subject matter” based on his status as a citizen of Zimbabwe, a registered voter, a beneficiary of the constitutional order, and “a person entitled to the protection afforded by entrenched constitutional safeguards under section 328 of the Constitution.”
“The proposed constitutional amendment process directly affects my constitutional rights and interests,” he states, including his “right to constitutional governance founded upon the supremacy of the Constitution” and his “political rights and legitimate constitutional expectation to participate in constitutionally mandated democratic processes.”
Matete’s application attaches several annexures, including a statement by the Minister of Justice who has publicly stated that the Bill does not require a referendum, a newspaper article dated 12 March 2026 quoting former Deputy Minister, Paul Mangwana that “Bill No 3 does not need referendum.”
Also attached are submissions from the Zimbabwe Catholic Bishops Conference (ZCBC), the Zimbabwe Council of Churches, and the Law Society of Zimbabwe, all raising concerns about the need for a referendum.
The Law Society of Zimbabwe warned in formal submissions dated May 15, 2026, that if Clauses 4, 9 and 10 were adopted without a referendum, “their adoption would be inconsistent with the constitution and international law,” according to Matete’s affidavit.
The applicant has formally raised three constitutional issues before the court, which are:
One, whether Clauses 4, 9 and 10 affect entrenched constitutional provisions protected under section 328. Two, whether the proposed amendments may lawfully be enacted without approval by way of a national referendum. Three, whether the respondents’ intended conduct violates sections 2, 3, and 328 of the Constitution.
Matete does not seek costs, noting that the court “rarely grants costs in applications of this nature.”
Leave a Reply