By Obert Gutu| With due respect to the three(3) High Court judges, they failed to make a distinction between a TERM LIMIT and an AGE LIMIT.

Constitution Amendment (No.2) Act does not extend the TERM LIMIT of judges of the superior courts. It merely extends the AGE LIMIT by allowing them to continue occupying judicial office for another 5 years after attaining the age of 70 subject to them providing medical proof that they are still in sound physical and mental health.

This, to me, is the major weakness of the High Court judgment that was handed down on Saturday, May 15, 2021.

Because Constitution Amendment (No.2) Act does not extend the TERM LIMIT of judges of the superior courts, there is, therefore, no need to go to a referendum.
The term limit of Constitutional Court judges is limited to 15 years. CJ Luke Malaba had not yet served his 15 year term limit as a Constitutional Court judge and thus, his age limit could lawfully be extended to enable him to serve for another 5 year period, subject, of course, to the requirements of providing a medical certificate.

I’m absolutely convinced that the High Court judgment is challengeable in the Supreme Court with a significant degree of prospects of success of the appeal. Clearly, the High Court totally misdirected itself by failing to distinguish between a TERM LIMIT and an AGE LIMIT.

Obert Chaurura Gutu

Sunday, May 16, 2021