Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
The three political parties in Zimbabwe, ZANU-PF, MDC-T and MDC-N negotiated a new proposed constitution after a constitutional outreach program. [2] The new constitution was presented to Parliament on 5 February 2013 and subsequently approved in the referendum of 16 March 2013. [3] [4] Parliament approved it on 9 May 2013 and President Robert ...
The amendment also changed the basis of acquisition of nationality to birth in Zimbabwe to a Zimbabwean removing jus soli provisions for foreigners and protections for foundlings and against statelessness. [118] In 2001, the Citizenship of Zimbabwe Act was amended allowing women an equal right to pass on their nationality to adopted children. [118]
The Supreme Court of Zimbabwe made a groundbreaking decision in 1995 by ruling that a foreign husband should have identical rights of residence as a foreign wife. [7] As a direct result of this ruling, the Zimbabwean government added the 14th amendment to the constitution, which effectively got rid of all rights to citizenship based on marriage ...
A constitutional court is a high court that deals primarily with constitutional law.Its main authority is to rule on whether laws that are challenged are in fact unconstitutional, i.e. whether they conflict with constitutionally established rules, rights, and freedoms, among other things.
Since the defeat of the constitutional referendum in 2000, politics in Zimbabwe has been marked by a move from the norms of democratic governance, such as democratic elections, the independence of the judiciary, the rule of law, freedom from racial discrimination, the existence of independent media, civil society and academia. [5]
A constitutional referendum was held in Zimbabwe on 16 and 17 March 2013, [1] [2] after being postponed from September 2011 [3] and from 30 June 2011. [4] Ultimately the new constitution was approved by 94% of voters. [5]
Later in 2018, the Zimbabwe Constitutional Court ruled that Section 29 of POSA was unconstitutional, as this section specifically allowed local law enforcement to prohibit public demonstrations in their jurisdictions for an indefinite period. [9]
Mike Campbell (Pvt) Ltd et al. v. Republic of Zimbabwe [1] is a case decided by the Southern African Development Community (SADC) Tribunal (hereinafter "the Tribunal"). The Tribunal held that the Zimbabwean government violated the organisation's treaty by denying access to the courts and engaging in racial discrimination against white farmers whose lands had been confiscated under the land ...