By Reason Wafawarova
An urgent High Court application has been filed seeking to halt the final processing of the Constitution of Zimbabwe Amendment (No. 3) Bill (CAB3), with the applicant arguing that the constitutional amendment process has been irreparably tainted by alleged inducements offered to Members of Parliament who voted in favour of the Bill.
The application, filed in the High Court under case number HCH3185/26, was lodged by Harare resident Reuben Zulu against Citizens Coalition for Change proportional representation MP Samantha Mureyani, ZANU-PF Bindura South legislator Remigious Matangira, the Clerk of Parliament, the Speaker of Parliament, and Parliament of Zimbabwe itself.
Represented by Coghlan Welsh & Guest Legal Practitioners, the applicant argues that Parliament should be stopped from certifying, authenticating, validating or presenting CAB3 for Presidential assent until the courts determine whether the National Assembly vote complied with constitutional and parliamentary requirements.
Constitutional challenge centres on alleged inducements:
The application does not seek an indefinite halt to the constitutional amendment process.
Instead, it seeks interim relief preserving the status quo until the High Court determines whether votes allegedly affected by financial inducements, gifts or conflicts of interest can lawfully be counted towards the two-thirds constitutional majority required to amend Zimbabwe’s Constitution.
According to the founding affidavit, the challenge follows public reports alleging that certain Members of Parliament received luxury vehicles, cash payments and other benefits during the period in which they publicly supported CAB3.
The application argues that if Members voted while subject to undisclosed financial interests connected to the Bill, those votes may be constitutionally defective and incapable of being counted towards the required constitutional majority.
Earlier warning to Parliament:
The court papers state that on 25 June 2026, the applicant and several concerned citizens delivered an open letter to the Speaker of Parliament and the President of the Senate warning that the constitutional amendment process had allegedly been compromised by inducements and conflicts of interest.
According to the application, that letter called for:
• suspension of CAB3 proceedings;
• a parliamentary privileges inquiry;
• disclosure of gifts and financial benefits;
• exclusion of affected Members from participating in the vote; and
• referral of alleged criminal conduct to the appropriate authorities.
The applicant contends that Parliament proceeded without acting on those requests.
Reliance on parliamentary ethics rules:
A significant part of the application relies not only on constitutional provisions but also on Parliament’s own legislative framework governing Members’ conduct.
The applicant cites provisions of the Privileges, Immunities and Powers of Parliament Act, Standing Orders and the Code of Conduct and Ethics for Members of Parliament, arguing that Members with direct pecuniary interests connected to parliamentary business are required to disclose those interests and, where appropriate, recuse themselves from participating.
The papers further argue that acceptance of gifts or rewards connected to parliamentary proceedings could raise issues under both parliamentary disciplinary rules and statutory law.
Role of the Speaker and Clerk questioned:
The application also places responsibility on Parliament’s presiding officers.
It argues that once allegations concerning inducements became public, the Speaker ought to have initiated a privileges inquiry, required disclosure of interests and prevented any potentially conflicted Members from participating until the allegations had been investigated.
Similarly, the Clerk of Parliament is cited because of his constitutional role in certifying and authenticating parliamentary proceedings. The applicant argues that certification of a vote later found to have included impermissible votes would undermine the integrity of the constitutional amendment process.
Interim relief sought:
Pending determination of the matter, the applicant asks the High Court to temporarily interdict Parliament from certifying or transmitting CAB3 for Presidential assent.
The draft provisional order would also temporarily prevent the two cited Members of Parliament from participating in further CAB3 proceedings until the court has determined the application, while directing Parliament to ensure that no Member alleged to have received undisclosed benefits connected to CAB3 participates in subsequent debates or votes pending resolution of the matter.
Final orders requested:
If the application ultimately succeeds, the applicant asks the court to declare that votes cast by Members who received, accepted, were promised or failed to disclose benefits connected to CAB3 cannot lawfully be counted towards the constitutional majority required for constitutional amendment.
The applicant also seeks an order requiring Parliament to conduct an audit or privileges inquiry into alleged inducements, exclude affected Members where appropriate, and, if Parliament wishes to proceed with CAB3, conduct a fresh National Assembly vote after those issues have been resolved.
Matter certified urgent:
The accompanying Certificate of Urgency argues that the application required immediate judicial intervention because the constitutional amendment process was moving towards certification and Presidential assent.
According to the legal practitioner who signed the certificate, once certification occurred, any subsequent challenge risked becoming ineffective because the constitutional process would already have advanced beyond Parliament.
What happens next?
The High Court is now expected to determine whether the matter satisfies the requirements for urgent hearing and, if so, whether interim relief should be granted pending determination of the substantive constitutional questions raised in the application.
The application represents one of the most significant legal challenges yet mounted against the parliamentary process that produced CAB3, focusing not on the policy merits of the Bill itself but on whether the constitutional amendment process complied with constitutional standards governing parliamentary integrity, conflicts of interest and legislative procedure.
Editorial analysis of the constitutional, legal and political implications of this application will follow in a separate commentary.
