The Network of African National Human Rights Institutions (NANHRI) has expressed grave concern over the independence of the Zimbabwe Human Rights Commission (ZHRC) following the reassignment of its chairperson, Fungayi Jessie Majome, to the Public Service Commission (PSC).
Majome was reassigned to the PSC last week by President Emmerson Mnangagwa citing Section 202(1)(b) of Zimbabwe’s Constitution.
This was after the ZHRC released findings from its monitoring of public hearings on Constitutional Amendment Bill No. 3.
In that report, the Commission highlighted serious concerns, including harassment and intimidation of dissenting voices, restricted access to public hearings and violations of fundamental rights such as freedom of expression, equality and personal security.
NANHRI Executive Director, Gilbert Sebihogo, warned Majome’s reassignment risks undermining constitutional safeguards designed to protect independent oversight institutions in Zimbabwe.
“The reassignment of a sitting Chairperson, particularly in the context of the Commission’s recent public reporting, sets a dangerous precedent that threatens the constitutional order, the rule of law, and democratic oversight,” Sebihogo said in a statement.
NANHRI, is a regional umbrella organisation that brings together 46 National Human Rights Institutions across Africa.
According to Sebihogo, the proximity between the Commission’s findings and the reassignment of its chairperson raises legitimate concerns about possible retaliation against the institution for carrying out its constitutional mandate.
“These findings reflect the ZHRC’s obligation to independently monitor and report on human rights conditions. Any adverse action against its leadership in close proximity to such reporting raises concerns about shrinking space for independent oversight,” he said.
The ZHRC is one of Zimbabwe’s Chapter 12 institutions, constitutionally mandated to operate independently of executive control.
NANHRI stressed that this independence is not optional, but a core requirement under the internationally recognised Paris Principles, which guide the functioning of national human rights institutions.
Sebihogo said the reassignment undermines the credibility and effectiveness of the Commission.
“For any national human rights institution to function credibly, it must be free from executive interference. Actions such as this erode public confidence and weaken the institution’s ability to carry out its mandate,” he said.
NANHRI further argued that Zimbabwe’s Constitution does not provide for the “reassignment” of commissioners from independent institutions, instead, it outlines a clear and strict process for removal under Section 237, which guarantees security of tenure.
“Commissioners may only be removed through a formal tribunal process on specific grounds such as misconduct or incapacity. Circumventing this process through executive action constitutes a de facto removal from office and erodes constitutional safeguards,” Sebihogo said.
The organisation also raised concerns about the broader implications of transferring a constitutional commissioner into the Public Service Commission, which falls under the executive branch.
It warned that treating commissioners as transferable civil servants fundamentally misinterprets their constitutional role.
“Independent commissions are designed to operate outside executive control. Blurring this distinction creates a dangerous precedent that compromises institutional integrity,” Sebihogo added.
NANHRI also highlighted concerns about the safety and working environment of ZHRC commissioners and staff, particularly in light of reports of hostility and intimidation during public consultations.
In its statement, the organisation called on the Zimbabwean government to make sure there is safety of commissioners, refrains from harassment or reprisals against individuals participating in public processes and respect constitutional guarantees of independence.
“The independence of the ZHRC is a fundamental safeguard for the people of Zimbabwe. Protecting the integrity of independent commissions is essential to ensuring a democratic society where human rights are respected and upheld,” Sebihogo said.
However, the government has defended Majome’s move.
Attorney-General Virginia Mabiza was quoted by state controlled media saying the reassignment of Majome is constitutionally sound and should not be interpreted as a removal from office.
Mabiza noted that this was not the first time Majome had been reassigned, pointing out that she was previously transferred from the Zimbabwe Anti-Corruption Commission to the ZHRC.
Meanwhile, the government also dismissed the ZHRC’s report on the amendment bill hearings as invalid, arguing that it was compiled without the required quorum, with state controlled media citing that the report was produced by Majome and two other commissioners.
This was after President Mnangagwa swore in six new commissioners to the ZHRC at State House in Harare on Wednesday.
Legal experts, however, have challenged claims that the report is invalid.
Constitutional and human rights lawyer Musa Kika cited provisions of the Zimbabwe Human Rights Commission Act, which state that decisions of the Commission are not invalid solely because it had fewer members than prescribed, provided a majority of those entitled to act participated.
“According to the Zimbabwe Human Rights Commission Act, Section 9: ‘Validity of decisions and acts of Commission and Working Groups’ states No decision or act of the Commission and any Working Group or act done under their authority shall be invalid solely because (a) the Commission or Working Group consisted of less than the number of persons for which provision is made in paragraphs 6 and 7;
“or (b) a disqualified person acted as a Commissioner or member of a Working Group at the time the decision was taken or the act was done or authorised; if the decision was taken or the act was done or authorised by a majority vote of the persons who at the time were entitled to act as Commissioners or members of a Working Group.”
I