National Assembly Speaker Jacob Mudenda has defended the process used by Parliament to consult on President Emmerson Mnangagwa’s appointment of 10 Senators, arguing that MPs were given adequate opportunities to express their views despite the absence of a specific procedure in the Standing Orders.
Mudenda made the submissions in an opposing affidavit filed in the Constitutional Court in response to an application by Thamsanqa Ncube and Ibhetshu Likazulu challenging the process used to consider the appointments.
The 10 appointed Senators are Jabulani Sibanda, Makhosini Hlongwane, Mary Mliswa, Nokuthula Matsikenyere, Kudakwashe Tagwirei, Goodwills Masimirembwa, Lucy Chitiga, Gen Gibson Mashingaidze, Brilliant Dube and Iren Mutumbwa.
According to Mudenda, Mnangagwa communicated his intention to appoint the 10 Senators to Parliament on August 18, 2026, following the promulgation of the Constitution of Zimbabwe Amendment (No. 3) Act of 2026 on July 7.
On this topic
“Section 120(1)(e) of the Constitution states that the President can appoint up to ten Senators, after consultation with the National Assembly. In the present case, the National Assembly was consulted. This is contrary to the applicant’s case in the Founding Affidavit against Parliament.”
Mudenda acknowledged that the National Assembly’s Standing Orders did not prescribe a specific procedure for consulting Parliament on the appointments.
“It is acknowledged that, at present, the Standing Orders of the National Assembly do not prescribe the procedure for consultation in relation to the appointment of ten Senators to the National Assembly.”
He attributed the gap to the short period between the promulgation of the constitutional amendment and the President’s communication to Parliament.
“The interval between 7 July and 18 August 2026 is, in the ordinary course, regarded as insufficient for Parliament to have enacted Standing Orders providing for such a process.”
Mudenda said Parliament therefore relied on existing parliamentary practice to conduct the consultation.
On August 18, he said he read Mnangagwa’s letter to the National Assembly, announced the names of the 10 proposed Senators and asked whether there was any debate on the matter.
“No one rose to debate the appointment of the proposed ten Senators.”
He then put the question to the House on whether the 10 proposed Senators should be recommended for appointment.
“The House was then divided by acclamation. Those in support of the motion were to acclaim “Ayes” and those against were to acclaim “Noes”. Those who said “Ayes” were the loudest.”
Mudenda said those supporting the appointments were in the majority and the 10 proposed Senators were subsequently recommended for appointment.
“The aforesaid ten Senators were thus recommended for appointment to the Senate by the National Assembly.”
He rejected the applicants’ argument that the Hansard record did not demonstrate that Parliament had properly considered the appointments, saying it did not capture the full sequence of events.
“The Hansard extract of the National Assembly of 18 August 2026, as referred to by the applicant, does not reflect the full set of facts and events that transpired in the National Assembly.”
Mudenda relied on Standing Order 215, which gives the presiding officer discretion where the Standing Orders do not provide for a particular matter.
“The procedure employed to consult the National Assembly, namely, putting the question to the House as to whether the National Assembly recommended the appointment of the ten Senators, was grounded in the relevant general parliamentary practice in Zimbabwe and in various Commonwealth jurisdictions.”
He said no Member of Parliament had requested that the matter be debated and argued that the absence of an objection amounted to unanimous concurrence.
“No Member of the National Assembly requested or sought that the matter be debated.”
Mudenda further maintained that MPs had two opportunities to express their views on the proposed appointments — when he asked whether there was a debate and when the House was divided through acclamation.
“Members of the National Assembly were afforded two distinct opportunities to voice their opinions.”
He said the consultation did not mean that the President was bound by Parliament’s recommendation.
“The National Assembly was indeed consulted. However, even in the applicant’s case, the recommendation and consultative processes of the National Assembly do not bind the President.”
Mudenda argued that the final decision to appoint the 10 Senators remained the President’s prerogative.
“It remains the prerogative of the President to appoint ten Senators on the basis of their competencies and professional skills.”
He also argued that courts should be cautious about interfering in Parliament’s internal affairs.
“This exercise of absolute discretion that Parliament is given in Standing Order 215, is an absolute discretion which is generally not lightly interfered with by a Court.”
Mudenda said Parliament had acted lawfully in devising the consultation procedure.
“From Parliament’s side, all the procedures were lawfully done.”
He dismissed concerns about the competencies and professional skills of the 10 proposed Senators, saying such issues could have been raised during parliamentary debate.
“The issues referred to by the applicant as to the competencies and professional skills of the ten proposed Senators, are issues ought to have been raised and debated if any Member of the National Assembly had requested a debate.”
He further argued that the consultation was between the President and the National Assembly and did not extend to the general public.
“The consultation process by the President is restricted to the National Assembly and not the general public.”
Mudenda is asking the Constitutional Court to dismiss the application, maintaining that Parliament followed established parliamentary practice when it considered the President’s proposed appointments.
“The process of consulting the National Asembly was done lawfully in line with parliamentary practice and in line with the procedure of unanimous occurence.”
“in the circumstances, the court is invited to dismiss this application.”
Leave a Reply