HARARE- Lawyers representing concerned citizens and war veterans are preparing a multi-pronged legal challenge to seek the nullification of parliamentary processes on the Constitutional Amendment Bill No. 3 (CAB3), arguing that it fatally tainted by bribery and procedural irregularities.
The lawyers want the result of the parliamentary vote for CAB3 declared invalid.
The legal action coincides with Parliament’s consideration of Senate amendments to the Bill which takes place today after both houses were summoned back by President Emmerson Mnangagwa.
The lawyers are preparing constitutional applications, criminal complaints and requests for parliamentary investigations into MPs alleged to have received inducements to support the proposed constitutional changes.
At the centre of the challenge are public claims by businessman Wicknell Chivhayo that he rewarded legislators who backed CAB3 with cash payments and Toyota Fortuner vehicles.
Chivhayo gifted Samantha Mureyani (CCC Proportional Representation MP, Manicaland) a 2026 Toyota Fortuner 2.8 GD6 and US$50,000 after publicly backing CAB3.
He also gave Remigious Matangira (ZANU PF Bindura South MP) the same package after supporting the Bill
and Susan Matsunga (CCC Budiriro North MP) a 2026 Toyota Fortuner 4×4 2.4 GD6 and US$50,000 for the same reason.
The lawyers are preparing criminal complaints against the MPs who accepted benefits while the amendment process remained live.
Among those he publicly identified were MPs Samantha Mureyani, Remigious Matangira and Susan Matsunga.
Lawyers are also expected to seek investigations into the involvement of businessman Paul Tungwarara, who they claim coordinated efforts to secure parliamentary support for the Bill, including allegations that cash payments were channelled to some legislators through political intermediaries.
Tungwarara is alleged to have dished out $10 000 to each MP to back CAB3.
The court papers are also expected to cite allegations against businessman and legislator Scott Sakupwanya, who lawyers claim played a role in mobilising parliamentary support for the Bill.
Businessman Kudakwashe Tagwirei is expected to feature prominently in the litigation.
Lawyers allege that he was among the principal financiers behind the campaign to secure support for CAB3.
According to the lawyers involved in the matter, the alleged conduct amounts to breaches of several Zimbabwean laws.
They argue that Section 18 of the Privileges, Immunities and Powers of Parliament Act prohibits Members of Parliament from accepting any fee, compensation, gift or reward in return for promoting or opposing a Bill before Parliament.
The lawyers contend that if MPs accepted vehicles or cash while CAB3 was still before Parliament, those benefits could constitute unlawful inducements under the Act.
The legal team also intends to rely on Section 170 of the Criminal Law (Codification and Reform) Act, which criminalises the giving or receiving of gifts or other benefits intended to influence the conduct of a public officer.
Lawyers argue that MPs qualify as public officers for the purposes of the provision and that any payments linked to support for CAB3 could amount to bribery if the statutory requirements are met.
In addition, the applications are expected to argue that MPs who allegedly accepted benefits acquired a direct financial interest in the legislation, contrary to Section 17 of the Privileges, Immunities and Powers of Parliament Act and Standing Order 140 of the National Assembly, which require legislators to declare personal interests and prohibit participation where a conflict exists.
The lawyers also contend that the alleged gifts exceeded disclosure thresholds contained in Parliament’s Code of Conduct and Ethics, arguing that any undeclared benefits would raise further questions about the integrity of the legislative process.
Based on those alleged violations, the legal team will argue that MPs who accepted inducements should have been disqualified from debating or voting on CAB3 and that any votes cast by such members should not be counted towards the constitutionally required two-thirds majority.
Beyond the bribery allegations, the lawyers are expected to challenge aspects of the amendment itself, arguing that provisions intended to benefit incumbent office holders conflict with constitutional safeguards governing presidential term limits and the amendment process.
The court applications are expected to seek declarations that the parliamentary vote was constitutionally invalid, orders excluding affected MPs from further participation in CAB3 proceedings, and referrals of the alleged bribery to the relevant investigative authorities for criminal investigation.
