CCZ 10-2018 Gonese & J Majome v President of Zimbabwe & Others

REPORTABLE        (8)

 

 

 

 

  1.     INNOCENT     GONESE     (2)     JESSIE     MAJOME

v

  1.     PRESIDENT     OF     ZIMBABWE     (2)     PARLIAMENT     OF     ZIMBABWE     (3)     MINISTER     OF     LOCAL     GOVERNMENT     AND     PUBLIC     WORKS     AND     NATIONAL     HOUSING N.O.

 

 

 

CONSTITUTIONAL COURT OF ZIMBABWE

GWAUNZA JCC, GARWE JCC, GOWORA JCC,

HLATSHWAYO JCC, PATEL JCC, GUVAVA JCC,

MAVANGIRA JCC, UCHENA JCC & BHUNU JCC

HARARE, 14 FEBRUARY & 31 OCTOBER 2018

 

 

L. Madhuku, for the applicants

M. Chimombe for the 1st & 3rd respondents

L. Uriri, for the 2nd respondent

 

 

                        PATEL JCC:            This is an application in terms of s 167(2)(d) of the Constitution  of Zimbabwe for the Court to determine whether Parliament or the President has failed to fulfil a constitutional obligation. The applicants aver that the respondents have failed to do so in respect of the presentation and passage of the Local Government Amendment Act No. 8 of 2016 in Parliament. It is further averred that presenting and passing a Bill in contravention of the Constitution amounts to a failure to fulfil a constitutional obligation.

 

                        The applicants contend that Act No. 8 of 2016 was passed and assented to contrary to the procedure sanctioned under the Constitution for the enactment of Bills. Furthermore, they contend that Act No. 8 of 2016 does not provide for the establishment of independent tribunals as enjoined by s 278(2) of the Constitution. The bodies created under the Act are subject to the whims of the third respondent (the Minister). This again constitutes a serious failure on the part of Parliament and the President to fulfil a constitutional obligation.

 

                        The applicants have approached this Court under s 85(1) of the Constitution in their own interests as citizens of Zimbabwe and as members of Parliament and of the Parliamentary Legal Committee (the PLC).  They aver on this basis that their locus standi is beyond dispute.

 

2018

Download File: 

Tags: