The
application,
names
Zanu
PF
as
the
first
respondent,
alongside
the
Minister
of
Justice,
Legal
and
Parliamentary
Affairs
–
Ziyambi
Ziyambi,
the
Speaker
of
Parliament
–
Jacob
Mudenda,
the
Attorney
General
–
Virginia
Mabiza
and
President
Emmerson
Mnangagwa
himself,
all
cited
in
their
official
capacities.
The
legal
challenge
centres
on
Zanu
PF’s
Resolution
Number
1
of
2024,
adopted
at
its
National
People’s
Conference
in
Bulawayo
in
October
2024,
which
explicitly
calls
for
the
president’s
term
to
be
“extended
beyond
2028
to
2030.”
The
Zanu
PF
resolution
directs
both
the
party
and
the
“Government”
to
“set
in
motion
the
necessary
amendments
to
the
National
Constitution
so
as
to
give
effect
to
this
resolution.”
This
directive
was
reaffirmed
with
greater
urgency
at
the
party’s
2025
conference
in
Mutare,
which,
noting
that
“no
notable
steps
have
been
taken,”
directed
the
Secretary
of
Legal
Affairs
and
the
Minister
of
Justice
to
make
sure
the
resolution
is
“fully
implemented”
before
the
2026
conference.
In
his
founding
affidavit,
Fuzwayo,
argues
that
this
resolution
creates
a
“real
and
imminent
threat
of
unconstitutional
action”
that
directly
infringes
upon
his
fundamental
rights.
He
is
seeking
direct
access
to
the
Constitutional
Court
to
challenge
it.
The
founding
affidavit
is
available
here: https://cite.org.zw/constitutional-court-application-filed-to-stop-zanu-pfs-term-extension-for-president-mnangagwa/
Fuzwayo’s
application
lays
out
a
clear
set
of
demands
from
the
court.
He
states
that
if
granted
leave
for
direct
access,
he
will
seek
the
following
relief,
quoted
directly
from
the
draft
order:
“Interdicting
the
Respondents
from
taking
any
steps
to
implement
Zanu
PF’s
Resolution
Number
1
pending
the
determination
of
this
matter.”“Declaration
that
sections
95(2)(b)
and
143(1)
constitute
term-limit
provisions
under
section
328(1)
and
328(7)
of
the
Constitution.”“Declaration
that
the
implementation
of
Zanu
PF’s
Resolution
Number
1
infringes
my
rights
under
sections
3,
56,
and
67
of
the
Constitution.”
Fuzwayo
said
he
is
not
seeking
“any
order
of
costs
as
against
any
Respondents
as
this
is
a
matter
of
public
and
national
importance.”
Fuzwayo’s
application
hinges
on
a
critical
interpretation
of
Section
328
of
the
Constitution,
which
deals
with
amendments.
Acting
on
legal
advice,
Fuzwayo,
contends
that
provisions
establishing
the
presidential
term
of
office
(Section
95)
and
the
lifespan
of
parliament
(Section
143)
are
“term-limit
provisions.”
He
cites
the
landmark
case
of
Marx
Mupungu
versus
Minister
of
Justice,
Legal
and
Parliamentary
Affairs
and
Ors
CCZ7/21,
where
the
court
defined
a
term-limit
provision
as
“a
myriad
of
provisions
that
unquestionably
constitute
specific
term
limit
provisions
within
the
parameters
of
Section
328.
First
and
foremost,
there
is
s
95(2)
which
expressly
stipulates
that
the
term
of
office
of
the
President
is
5
years
and
coterminous
with
the
life
of
Parliament.”
This
is
crucial
because
Section
328(7)
of
the
Constitution
states
that
any
amendment
to
a
term-limit
provision
that
extends
the
term
of
an
incumbent
must
be
subjected
to
a
national
referendum.
Fuzwayo
argues
that
Zanu
PF’s
resolution,
by
seeking
to
extend
President
Mnangagwa’s
term
without
such
a
referendum,
is
fundamentally
unconstitutional.
In
his
affidavit,
Fuzwayo
details
how
the
resolution
threatens
his
rights
as
a
citizen.
It
“threatens
the
rule
of
law
principle
by
bypassing
potential
referendum
safeguards,
eroding
multiparty
democracy.”
Furthermore,
he
states
it
“discriminates
by
extending
benefits
to
the
incumbent
President,
the
5th
Respondent,
violating
equality
before
the
law
protected
under
section
56
of
the
Constitution.”
Perhaps
most
significantly,
he
contends
it
“risks
infringing
rights
(enshrined
in
section
67
of
the
Constitution)
to
free,
fair
elections
and
participation,
as
the
amendments
being
sought
without
referendums
would
skew
democratic
processes.”
Fuzwayo
asserts
his
right
to
approach
the
court
under
Section
85(1)
of
the
Constitution,
which
allows
any
person
acting
in
their
own
interests
to
seek
relief
when
a
right
is
“likely
to
be
infringed.”
The
application
argues
that
the
matter
is
of
profound
public
importance,
warranting
direct
access
to
the
highest
court.
It
cites
the
“national
significance
of
clarifying
section
328(1)
amid
succession
debates”
and
the
“risk
of
irreparable
harm
if
amendments
proceed
without
judicial
guidance.”
Adding
a
stark,
real-world
dimension
to
the
legal
dispute,
Fuzwayo’s
affidavit
includes
as
an
exhibit
pictures
of
the
petrol
bombing
of
the
Southern
Africa
Political
Economy
Series
(SAPES)
trust
premises.
The
bombing
occurred
on
October
28,
2025,
ahead
of
a
news
conference
by
opposition
politicians
of
the
term
extension
resolution
that
was
due
to
be
hosted
at
SAPES.
He
presents
this
as
“alarming
evidence”
of
the
high
stakes
and
volatile
nature
of
the
dispute.
The
second
applicant,
Ibhetshu
Likazulu,
through
its
vice-chairperson
Thamsanqa
Ncube,
associated
itself
with
Fuzwayo’s
affidavit,
stating
that
one
of
its
fundamental
mandates
is
“to
guard
against
the
violation
of
the
Constitution.”