One of the greatest misconceptions currently circulating in Zimbabwe is the belief that the constitutional battle over Constitutional Amendment Act No. 6 of 2026 (formerly Constitutional Amendment Bill No. 3) is over simply because the president has assented to it.
Many have concluded that the matter is now settled and irreversible.
Nothing could be further from the truth.
In constitutional democracies, the signing of a Bill into law does not place it beyond judicial scrutiny. Indeed, history demonstrates that some of the most significant constitutional victories occur after legislation has already come into force.
Assent is an important constitutional milestone, but it is not the final word. The constitution—not Parliament, not the executive, and not even presidential assent—remains the supreme law of the land.
Zimbabwe itself provides the clearest precedent.
Many Zimbabweans will recall Constitutional Amendment Bill No. 2 (CAB2), which was signed into law after completing the legislative process. Yet its enactment did not end the constitutional debate.
The Constitutional Court subsequently examined the amendment process and declared aspects of the amendment invalid on procedural constitutional grounds.
- Mavhunga puts DeMbare into Chibuku quarterfinals
- Bulls to charge into Zimbabwe gold stocks
- Ndiraya concerned as goals dry up
- Letters: How solar power is transforming African farms
Keep Reading
That case established an important constitutional principle: legislation, including constitutional amendments, remains subject to judicial review after it has been enacted.
Presidential assent does not immunise an Act of Parliament from constitutional scrutiny.
This precedent should reassure every Zimbabwean who believes in constitutional democracy.
Our legal system recognises that constitutional validity is determined not merely by whether a Bill has been signed into law, but by whether it complies with the Constitution itself.
Contrary to the impression created in some quarters, Constitutional Amendment Act No. 6 continues to face an unprecedented wave of constitutional litigation.
There are currently seven constitutional applications before the Constitutional Court challenging different aspects of the amendment.
These applications are not duplicates of one another.
Rather, they raise a broad spectrum of constitutional issues, reflecting the many concerns that have been expressed by lawyers, civil society, constitutional scholars and citizens.
Some applications focus on procedural questions surrounding the amendment process.
Others challenge compliance with mandatory constitutional requirements during the passage of the bill.
Still others raise substantive constitutional questions concerning the compatibility of certain provisions with the structure, values and foundational principles of the constitution itself.
Each application presents a different legal pathway through which the Constitutional Court may be invited to examine the validity of the Amendment Act.
The existence of multiple applications also demonstrates the seriousness of the constitutional issues involved.
This is not a single isolated challenge. It is a comprehensive constitutional examination of one of the most consequential amendments since the adoption of the 2013 constitution.
There is another important point that deserves emphasis.
In the Prince Dubeko Sibanda matter, the Constitutional Court did not determine that CAB3 was constitutional.
The court merely held that the application before it had been brought prematurely because the legislative process had not yet been completed.
The court deliberately refrained from determining the substantive constitutional questions.
In other words, it postponed the constitutional debate—it did not resolve it.
Indeed, the judgment itself acknowledged that the constitutional issues may properly be determined once the legislative process has run its course.
Far from closing the door, the court left it open.
Many citizens understandably assume that litigation resembles an election: once a result is announced, the matter is finished.
Constitutional litigation works differently.
Complex constitutional questions are often tested through multiple applications brought by different parties raising different legal issues.
Some succeed.
Some fail.
Some clarify the law.
Others establish new constitutional principles.
What matters is the cumulative constitutional process, not the outcome of any single application.
This is particularly true where several independent challenges are proceeding simultaneously, as is now the case.
Hope should never be confused with wishful thinking.
Nor should constitutional litigation be reduced to political theatre.
The optimism surrounding the current constitutional challenges should be grounded in law, precedent and the strength of the legal arguments being advanced before the court.
The cnstitutional conduct may be corrected—even after legislation has been enacted.
That is precisely why constitutional courts exist.
The constitutional struggle cannot be left to lawyers alone.
Courts interpret constitutions, but constitutions ultimately derive their legitimacy from the people.
Citizens therefore have an ongoing responsibility to defend constitutionalism through peaceful civic participation, constitutional literacy and democratic engagement.
Our constitution was born through the participation of ordinary Zimbabweans.
Its protection likewise requires ordinary Zimbabweans to remain engaged.
The popular expression reminds us that outcomes should never be declared before the final act has been performed.
That wisdom applies equally to constitutional litigation.
The signing of Constitutional Amendment Act No. 6 is not the end of the constitutional story.
The Constitutional Court has yet to determine multiple substantive questions now properly before it.
Any one of those applications could result in part—or even all—of the Amendment Act being declared unconstitutional.
Until those matters have been finally determined, no one can honestly claim that the constitutional debate has been settled.
Constitutional democracy requires patience.
It requires confidence in institutions.
Above all, it requires citizens who understand that the constitution remains the supreme law, and that no law—however recently enacted—is beyond constitutional scrutiny.
The final chapter in Zimbabwe's constitutional story has not yet been written.
The fat lady has not yet sung.
*Senator Jameson Z. Timba is a political leader, former minister of State in the Prime Minister's Office, convenor of the Defend the Constitution Platform, founding Principal of Sungano yeVanhu – Ubumbano Lomphakathi (The People's Coalition), and a member of the presidium of the Progressive Alliance.
He writes regularly on constitutionalism, democracy, governance, public policy, political strategy, leadership, Pan-African affairs and Zimbabwe's democratic development. More of his writings can be found at www.jamesontimba.com.
