A war veteran has filed an urgent High Court application seeking to stop the certification and further processing of the Constitution of Zimbabwe Amendment Bill No.3 (CAB3), arguing that the parliamentary vote that passed the proposed law was unlawfully tainted by gifts received from controversial businessman Wicknell Chivayo.
HealthCommunity InformationReuben Zulu filed the urgent chamber application in the High Court in Harare against CCC legislator Samantha Murenyanyi, Zanu PF Bindura South MP Remigious Matangira, the Clerk of Parliament, the Speaker of Parliament and Parliament of Zimbabwe.
Murenyanyi and Matangira received luxury vehicles from Chivayo after backing the constitutional amendments during National Assembly debates. Murenyanyi also received US$50,000, reportedly earmarked for constituency development projects despite her not representing a geographical constituency.
Follow us on WhatsApp | LinkedIn for the latest headlines
The gifts attracted widespread criticism from opponents, who described them as vote-buying intended to influence the outcome of the legislative process.
Zulu is seeking an interim order staying the certification, authentication, transmission, presentation for presidential assent and any further validation of the National Assembly's approval of CAB3 pending the final determination of the matter.
He argues that Parliament should not proceed with the constitutional amendment until allegations that some legislators were induced to support the Bill have been independently investigated.
"The Constitution cannot be amended by cash and keys," reads part of his founding affidavit.
"A constitutional majority must be a constitutional majority."
Zulu says he is bringing the application in his personal capacity, in the public interest and to protect the integrity of Zimbabwe's constitutional amendment process.
HealthCommunity Information"The matter is not an invitation to this Honourable Court to manage Parliament's ordinary business," he states.
"It is a constitutional legality challenge directed at a specific vice: the certification and validation of a constitutional amendment vote allegedly contaminated by rewards, gifts, inducements and conflicts of interest."
He contends that the first and second respondents allegedly received material benefits linked to their public support for CAB3 and should not have participated in the parliamentary process without disclosure and a proper investigation.
Zulu further alleges that Parliament ignored a letter from concerned citizens warning that the constitutional amendment process had been compromised.
"We warned Parliament that CAB3 was tainted by criminal inducements, gifts and rewards," he says.
Sign up for free AllAfrica Newsletters
Get the latest in African news delivered straight to your inbox
According to the application, the Senate has already approved CAB3 while the National Assembly has completed its consideration of the Bill, leaving it awaiting certification and presidential assent.
Zulu argues that the matter is urgent because the constitutional amendment process is nearing completion.
The National Assembly on Tuesday passed the bill for the second time after debating changes by the Senate. CAB3 now awaits the President's assent.
"Once a contaminated vote is certified and carried forward into the final stages of a constitutional amendment process, the harm will already have occurred," he says.
He argues that any subsequent court challenge would provide inadequate relief because the constitutional amendment process would have substantially advanced.
In the main application, Zulu is asking the court to invalidate the National Assembly vote to the extent that it included legislators who allegedly received gifts or rewards linked to CAB3.
He also wants Parliament to conduct an audit or privileges inquiry into the alleged inducements before any fresh vote is held. In addition, he is seeking an order barring affected legislators from debating or voting on CAB3 until they have fully disclosed any benefits received and have been cleared through a lawful process.
The High Court is yet to determine the urgent application.
