Citizens Coalition for Change (CCC)’s interim secretary general Sengezo Tshabangu has filed an appeal with the Supreme Court seeking to overturn a High Court ruling that barred him from making changes to the party’s parliamentary leadership.
Tshabangu argues that the High Court equated his parliamentary leadership reshuffles with recalls, when they were not.
His appeal comes after a January 8, 2025, High Court judgment delivered by Justice Neville Wamambo in case HCH 5606/24, which declared Tshabangu lacked the authority to reassign Members of Parliament.
The ruling followed an urgent application by CCC acting president Professor Welshman Ncube, who argued that Tshabangu’s actions were “unlawful and invalid.”
Justice Wamambo referenced an earlier High Court judgment by Justice Tawanda Chitapi in HC 6872/23, which had already invalidated Tshabangu’s recall actions.
In his Supreme Court filing made on January 9, 2025 by Ncube Attorneys Legal Practitioners, Tshabangu has asked for the High Court ruling to be set aside and replaced with a judgment striking the application off the roll with costs or, alternatively, dismissing it on jurisdictional grounds.
His appeal listed seven grounds of appeal, stating how the High Court erred by joining two parties named “Citizens Coalition for Change” as respondents but failing to address the implications of this duplication in its judgment.
Tshabangu said the court “misdirected itself in rendering a judgement that neither refers to nor speaks to such a joined party.”
Two, he said the “court erred in not finding, as it ought to have done, that the matter before it, as pleaded, was a constitutional matter in respect of which its jurisdiction was expressly excluded by section 167 of the Constitution.”
Three, he said Prof Ncube’s application was defective due to non-compliance with Rule 107 of the High Court Rules 2021.
Four, Tshabangu noted the High Court misinterpreted Section 151 of the Constitution by asserting that individual members of the Committee on Standing Rules and Orders are appointed for the life of each Parliament.
Five, he said the High Court failed to acknowledge that the contested respondents were not part of the Committee’s initial appointment, making their positions invalid.
“The court a quo erred as in failing to appreciate that the 3rd, 4th and 5th Respondents were not appointed in the initial appointment of the Committee on Standing Rules and Orders and thus, in terms of the Court’s own findings, are not entitled to be in the positions in issue,” he said.
Six. Tshabangu argued the High Court wrongly equated his parliamentary leadership reshuffles with recalls as defined under section 129(1)(k) of the Constitution.
“ The court a quo erred in holding that the conduct of the 1 st Appellant and 6th Respondent of reshuffling the parliamentary positions amounts to a recall within the contemplation of section 129(1)(k) as anticipated in terms of case number HC 6872/23 and in declaring that they are thus null and void,” read the appeal.
Seven, Tshabangu said the ruling incorrectly declared the position of Chief Whip unlawful and invalidated the appointment of the third respondent as the overall Chief Whip.
“The court a quo erred in holding that the position of Chief Whip is not recognized by law and is therefore unlawful and consequently in declaring that the appointment of the 3rd Respondent as the overall Chief Whip is unlawful.
In his appeal, Tshabangu is seeking relief in the form of an order allowing the appeal, setting aside the High Court judgment, and dismissing the original application with costs.
Meanwhile, Tshabangu has stated that he does not acknowledge Prof Ncube as the acting president of the CCC and is only an ordinary party member, and has so rejected Prof Ncube’s suspension of him.
In an interview with CITE, Tshabangu’s spokesperson, Nqobizitha Mlilo, in explaining why they would appeal, criticised the High Court ruling, calling it “unsustainable at law.”
“We respectfully hold the view that the learned judge misdirected himself on both the facts and the law, and consequently came to a wrong legal conclusion,” said Mlilo.
He added that the party is confident the appeal will succeed.
“There is simply no basis for urgency, and party Article 6 structures, save for the Local Government Caucus and Parliamentary Caucus, have already expired. That ought to be obvious. And if it is, then clearly the judgment is legally unsound. ” Mlilo argued.
Mlilo expressed confidence that either the Supreme Court or a full bench of the High Court would overturn the judgment.
“There are reasonable prospects that another Court, a Court of appeal will come to a different conclusion and set aside this judgment. In fact we are confident that either the full bench of the High Court or the Supreme Court of Appeal will set aside this judgement (as being one arrived at by a wrong application of the law to the facts),” Mlilo said.
This appeal to the Supreme Court comes as the CCC remains deeply divided, with rival camps continuing to trade accusations.
