Chivayo CAB 3 ‘bribes’ backfire

Former freedom fighter Reuben Zulu argued in his application that Parliament’s approval of the proposed constitutional changes was “contaminated” by allegations of corruption and unlawful inducements offered to MPs.

The application was filed on Tuesday, the same day the National Assembly approved the Bill, which now awaits President Emmerson Mnangagwa’s signature before becoming law.

Zulu was one of six applicants who earlier approached the Constitutional Court seeking to invalidate the process leading to the Bill’s introduction and wwa represented by constitutional expert Lovemore Madhuku.

In the latest application, he is seeking an interim interdict preventing the Speaker of Parliament, the Clerk of Parliament and other officials from certifying, transmitting or presenting the Bill to Mnangagwa for assent pending the determination of the case.

The application alleges that National Assembly proceedings were tainted by unlawful inducements, including luxury vehicles and cash provided to legislators while the Bill was still before Parliament.
According to Zulu’s founding affidavit, two MPs — Samantha Mureyani of the Citizens Coalition for Change (CCC) and Remigious Matangira of Zanu PF — allegedly received 2026 Toyota Fortuner vehicles and cash payments from Chivhayo while participating in CAB 3 proceedings.

Zulu alleged that Mureyani received an additional US$50 000 reportedly designated for constituency projects, despite being a proportional representation MP.

The affidavit states: “It is not about whether the reward was paid before or after a speech.
“The question is whether a member accepted a reward for or in respect of the promotion of, support for, or conduct relating to a Bill.”

Additional allegations suggest that cash payments of US$10 000 were distributed to legislators through parliamentary chief whips under the guise of constituency development funding.

The applicant argues these inducements violated statutes governing parliamentary conduct.

Specifically, the application cites Section 18 of the Privileges, Immunities and Powers of Parliament Act, which prohibits MPs from accepting rewards connected with supporting or opposing legislation, and Section 170 of the Criminal Law (Codification and Reform) Act, which criminalises inducements intended to influence official duties.

The applicants contend that legislators receiving such benefits should have declared their interests under parliamentary Standing Orders and the Members’ Code of Conduct and Ethics.

These allegations raise serious questions regarding whether the constitutional threshold for passing such legislation was achieved through a lawful process.

This follows a May ruling where the Constitutional Court struck off a previous application by Zulu and five other veterans.

That challenge focused on President Emmerson Mnangagwa’s involvement in chairing the Cabinet meeting that approved the Bill.

Justice Bharat Patel held that the applicants had “fallen short of the critical requirement to establish any precise or specific obligation” breached by the President.

This latest application shifts focus away from the President, instead targeting the parliamentary officials and legislators alleged to have benefited from inducements.

In a certificate of urgency, legal practitioner Kudzanai Brian Munakamwe argues that allowing the Bill to proceed would cause “irreparable prejudice”, stating: “The constitutional process is continuing now. The risk is not remote. It is imminent.”

The applicants are seeking an interim interdict to bar the Speaker and Clerk from presenting CAB 3 for assent.

They also request that the two named MPs be barred from further participation until the matter is resolved.

On the return date, Zulu wants the court to declare any votes cast by induced members as invalid and to direct Parliament to institute a formal privileges inquiry.

CAB3 is one of the most significant constitutional reform measures since 2013. Critics argue it would fundamentally alter the country’s “constitutional architecture”, including changes to presidential terms and election methods.

While supporters maintain the reforms are lawful, the Bill has faced criticism from the Zimbabwe Catholic Bishops’ Conference, the Law Society of Zimbabwe and various civil society organisations.

The respondents have been directed to file opposing papers within three days.

If the High Court grants the interim relief, the constitutional amendment process could be temporarily halted pending a full hearing