Has he really won?

President Emmerson Mnangagwa's assent to the Private Voluntary Organisations Amendment Act (No. 1 of 2025) on April 11, 2025, has ignited a fierce legal and constitutional battle in Zimbabwe. The Act, widely criticised for its potential to stifle civil society and restrict fundamental freedoms, faces multiple challenges before the Constitutional Court. Legal practitioners are closely watching these proceedings, which question both the substantive provisions of the Act and the procedural regularity of its enactment. This development underscores the ongoing tension between legislative power and constitutional safeguards, with significant implications for the rule of law and democratic space in Zimbabwe.

On April 11, 2025, President Emmerson Mnangagwa assented to the Private Voluntary Organisations Amendment Act (No. 1 of 2025), a legislative measure that has been met with widespread condemnation from civil society organisations, legal experts, and international bodies. This enactment, following a protracted and contentious parliamentary process, is perceived by many as a direct assault on fundamental freedoms and civic space in Zimbabwe. The Act's provisions grant the government extensive powers over the registration, regulation, and operations of non-governmental organisations (NGOs), raising serious concerns about its compatibility with the Constitution of Zimbabwe, 2013.

The signing of this Act has immediately triggered constitutional challenges, with rights activists and legal groups petitioning the Constitutional Court to declare various provisions, and indeed the entire Act, invalid. These legal battles are not merely about the specific clauses of the PVO Amendment Act but represent a critical test for constitutionalism, the separation of powers, and the independence of the judiciary in Zimbabwe. This article delves into the legal framework governing legislative validity in Zimbabwe, analyses the specific constitutional grounds upon which the PVO Amendment Act is being challenged, and explores the implications for legal practitioners navigating this evolving landscape.

The legislative authority in Zimbabwe is vested in the Legislature, which consists of Parliament and the President, acting in accordance with the Constitution. The Constitution of Zimbabwe, 2013, stands as the supreme law of the land, and any law, practice, custom, or conduct inconsistent with it is invalid to the extent of the inconsistency. This constitutional supremacy underpins the principle of judicial review, empowering courts, particularly the Constitutional Court, to scrutinise legislative enactments for their conformity with the supreme law.

The Private Voluntary Organisations Amendment Act (No. 1 of 2025) significantly alters the regulatory landscape for PVOs by expanding their definition to include trusts and other legal arrangements, prohibiting their involvement in political activities, and introducing stringent registration requirements and severe penalties, including imprisonment, for non-compliance. While the government asserts that these amendments are necessary to comply with international standards on combating money laundering and terrorist financing, critics argue that the Act's broad and vague provisions are designed to curtail freedom of association and expression, and to silence dissenting voices ahead of elections.

The journey of the PVO Amendment Bill to becoming law was fraught with controversy. An earlier version of the Bill, passed by Parliament in 2023, was initially sent back by President Mnangagwa for reconsideration due to reservations, ultimately lapsing before the 2023 general election. A new version was subsequently gazetted in March 2024 and eventually signed into law in April 2025, despite continued objections from civil society and international observers. This history highlights the persistent concerns regarding the legislative process and the potential for executive overreach.

The PVO Amendment Act faces robust constitutional challenges on multiple fronts, both substantively and procedurally. Rights organisations like Zimbabwe Lawyers for Human Rights (ZLHR) and activist Youngerson Matete have launched applications before the High Court and Constitutional Court, respectively, seeking to nullify the Act or its repressive provisions. Substantively, the Act is alleged to violate several fundamental rights enshrined in the Declaration of Rights (Chapter 4) of the Constitution. These include the freedom of association (Section 58), freedom of expression (Section 61), the right to administrative justice (Section 68), the right to a fair hearing (Section 69), and property rights (Section 71). Critics argue that the Act's broad prohibitions on political activities by PVOs, coupled with the extensive discretionary powers granted to the Minister and Registrar, disproportionately restrict these rights and are not demonstrably justifiable in a democratic society.

Procedurally, the Act's enactment is also under scrutiny. Youngerson Matete's application to the Constitutional Court specifically alleges that Parliament breached Sections 131(2) and (4) of the Constitution, which govern the legislative process, as well as Section 133(1) on public participation and Section 138(1) relating to Senate procedures. It is further argued that the President, by assenting to a Bill that had not been lawfully passed, failed to uphold his constitutional obligations under Section 90(1) to ensure that the Constitution and all laws are faithfully observed. These procedural irregularities, if proven, could lead to the Act being declared invalid in its entirety, irrespective of its substantive provisions.

The Constitutional Court of Zimbabwe plays a pivotal role as the final arbiter in constitutional matters, possessing the exclusive power to confirm orders of constitutional invalidity of any law or conduct of the President or Parliament. This power ensures that judicial review serves as a crucial check on legislative and executive actions, upholding the rule of law. However, the Court's jurisprudence in high-profile cases involving government interests has, at times, drawn academic criticism regarding its perceived inclination to protect governmental actions, raising questions about its reliability as a guardian of human rights under autocratic conditions. Nevertheless, the principles of judicial review, including illegality, irrationality, procedural impropriety, and proportionality, are firmly embedded in Zimbabwean law, particularly through Section 68 of the Constitution and established case law, providing a framework for challenging arbitrary or unfair administrative actions and legislation. The ongoing challenges to the PVO Amendment Act will undoubtedly test the Constitutional Court's commitment to these principles and its role in safeguarding the constitutional order.

The enactment of the Private Voluntary Organisations Amendment Act (No. 1 of 2025) marks a critical juncture for constitutionalism and human rights in Zimbabwe. While the President may have assented to the Act, the legal battle is far from over, with significant constitutional challenges currently before the courts. The outcome of these cases will have profound implications for the operational space of civil society organisations, the protection of fundamental freedoms, and the integrity of the legislative process in the country.

For legal practitioners, this development underscores the enduring importance of public interest litigation and constitutional advocacy. Advising civil society clients on compliance with the new Act, while simultaneously pursuing avenues for its constitutional challenge, will require a nuanced understanding of both the Act's provisions and the evolving constitutional jurisprudence. Practitioners must remain vigilant, actively engaging with the judicial process and advocating for the robust protection of constitutional rights. The judiciary's response to these challenges will be a crucial indicator of its independence and its commitment to upholding the supreme law, ultimately determining how far the 'man with the funny scarf' has truly gotten his way.