Mutasa on Monday issued an implicit statement indicating that disgruntled Zanu-PF members were preparing to mount a court challenge on the legality of the holding of the party’s congress and endorsement of constitutional amendments that scrapped the election of national office bearers.
United Kingdom-based law lecturer Alex Magaisa said the challenge being touted by aggrieved Zanu-PF members are sound at law.
It is plain that the procedure was not followed and that this is a contravention of Zanu-PF’s own constitution.
If they mount a legal challenge, I think they would have strong grounds, Magaisa said. There is a procedure to be followed when amending the constitution.
That procedure exists for a good reason. It is so that the constitution is not amended at the mere whim of individuals or a faction.
Mutasa alleges that Zanu-PF did not follow article 30 of the party’s constitution as read with section 253 which stipulate the process and procedures of making amendments to the charter.