HARARE – Former Binga North legislator Prince Dubeko Sibanda has filed a fresh application at the Constitutional Court seeking to strike down two provisions of the newly enacted Constitution of Zimbabwe Amendment Act No. 6 of 2026, arguing they unlawfully extend the terms of the sitting president and the current parliament in defiance of an express constitutional bar on such incumbent benefits.

Through his lawyers Mbidzo Muchadehama & Makoni, Sibanda petitioned the apex court on July 11, citing parliament, the president and the minister of justice, legal and parliamentary affairs as respondents.

The application targets sections 5(b) and 10(b) of the amendment act, which inserted new clauses into sections 95 and 143 of the constitution stating that the extended seven-year terms for the presidency and parliament apply “notwithstanding section 328(7)” – the constitutional clause that bars term-extension amendments from benefiting anyone already holding the office in question.

In his founding affidavit, Sibanda, who is also a lawyer and was elected to the Binga North seat in the 2013, 2018 and 2023 general elections, said the dispute was “narrow but grave,” stressing that his challenge was not aimed at the seven-year term itself.

“It is not directed at the wisdom, popularity or political desirability of a seven-year term,” he said. “It is directed at the constitutional competence of an amendment that seeks to confer an incumbency benefit in the teeth of s328(7).”

Act No. 6 of 2026 extended the presidential term of office from five to seven years and lengthened the duration of parliament by the same margin. But it went further, inserting new sections 95(2a) and 143(2a), which apply the extended terms to the “continuation in office” of the sitting president and the current Senate and National Assembly, despite section 328(7) stating that such an amendment “does not apply in relation to any person who held or occupied that office, or an equivalent office, at any time before the amendment.”

Sibanda argues that parliament could not sidestep that bar simply by inserting a “notwithstanding” clause into the affected sections, rather than amending section 328 itself through the special procedure reserved for changes to the constitution’s entrenched amendment clause.

“Parliament cannot escape s328(7) by describing the benefit as the ‘continuation in office of the Senate and National Assembly’,” he contends.

“The Senate and National Assembly act through their members. The practical and constitutional effect is to extend the tenure of current Members of Parliament.”

He said allowing the mechanism to stand would open the door to parliament routinely legislating around other entrenched safeguards.

“If this device is permitted, s328 becomes optional,” he said. “Parliament could in future enact amendments ‘notwithstanding’ the two-thirds requirement, ‘notwithstanding’ referendum requirements, or ‘notwithstanding’ the special entrenchment of s328 itself. That would destroy the logic of constitutional supremacy.”

This is Sibanda’s second attempt to challenge the provisions. An earlier application, filed while the amendment was still before parliament as a bill, was struck off the roll under a Constitutional Court judgement which held that the dispute had not yet crystallised because the bill had not been read, debated, voted upon, transmitted, assented to or promulgated.

Sibanda said he accepted that ruling but noted that the defect no longer applied now that the bill had become law.

“The impugned clauses have now assumed legislative form,” he points out. “They are no longer contingent proposals. They are enacted provisions whose constitutionality now falls to be measured against s328(7).”

Sibanda is not asking the court to nullify the amendment act in its entirety. He wants only sections 5(b) and 10(b), along with the resulting sections 95(2a) and 143(2a), struck down, and a declaration that the extended terms do not apply to the sitting president or to current members of the Senate and National Assembly. His draft order does not seek a costs order against the respondents.

The respondents have 21 days from service of the application to file a notice of opposition, failing which the matter may be set down for hearing as unopposed.