The Attorney General of Zimbabwe, Virginia Mabiza, has formally opposed a citizen-led constitutional application seeking to nullify the controversial Private Voluntary Organisations (PVO) Amendment Act, No. 1 of 2025 setting the stage for a high-stakes legal battle over parliamentary procedure and executive authority.
In a Notice of Opposition and Opposing Affidavit filed in the Constitutional Court on January 13, 2026, and obtained by CITE, Mabiza, representing both herself and President Emmerson Mnangagwa, argues that the applicant, Youngerson Matete, has failed to establish any legitimate cause of action against them and that the case is “misplaced.”
Matete’s direct application, filed on December 24, 2025, seeks a declaration that the PVO Amendment Act, No. 1 of 2025, is unconstitutional and null and void.
The PVO Act has been widely criticised as a tool to stifle dissent and cripple independent humanitarian and governance work in Zimbabwe.
Read Matete’s application here: https://cite.org.zw/citizen-takes-pvo-law-to-constitutional-court/
Matete alleges the law was enacted through a “legally irregular process” that violated constitutional provisions and parliamentary standing orders.
The contentious legislation introduces stringent registration requirements, operational restrictions, severe civil and criminal penalties for non-governmental and charitable organisations, which the government argues are necessary for compliance with international anti-money laundering standards set by the Financial Action Task Force (FATF).
In her sworn affidavit, Mabiza pushes back forcefully, asserting that Matete’s papers do not “establish any cause of action against me.”
She references Section 114 of Zimbabwe’s Constitution, which outlines her mandate, and contends that simply naming her in an official capacity is insufficient grounds for litigation.
“It is meaningless for (the) applicant to simply state… that I am being sued in my official capacity without necessarily establishing any cause of action against me,” Mabiza states in the filing.
A central pillar of the opposition focuses on the role of the President in assenting to bills. Mabiza defends President Mnangagwa’s action, arguing that he bears “no constitutional obligation” to audit parliamentary internal processes once a bill is submitted for assent.
“Where Parliament certifies that the prescribed legislative procedures have been complied with, the third Respondent (the President) is entitled to rely on such certification,” the affidavit reads.
“He is not constitutionally mandated to audit internal Parliamentary processes.”
Mabiza’s argument seeks to protect the presidency from legal challenges based on alleged procedural flaws occurring within Parliament, effectively placing the onus for legislative regularity solely on the legislature itself.
The affidavit also addresses the core of Matete’s complaint, that the PVO Bill was irregularly shuttled between the House of Assembly and the Senate without gazetting.
Mabiza states she is “not privy to the processes” that occurred between the two parliamentary houses but suggests the procedure may be constitutionally sound.
“I am aware that in terms of the provisions of the Constitution a Bill can be moved between the two houses and that is perfectly legal,” she states, pointing to Section (5) of the Fifth Schedule of the Constitution, which provides for the transmission of bills.
Mabiza also notes that the Minister of Justice, Legal and Parliamentary Affairs, Ziyambi Ziyambi, who oversaw the bill’s parliamentary progression, is notably not a party to the case.
She implies this is a critical omission by the applicant.
“Despite making several averments touching on the Honourable Minister’s conduct it is unfathomable how Applicant… fails to make the Honourable Minister a party to the current proceedings,” the affidavit argues.
In his application, Matete had cited Parliament, the Minister of Public Service, Labour and Social Welfare (Edgar Moyo), the President and the Attorney General as respondents,
The Attorney General concludes that the application is “grossly irregular and incompetent” for failing to meet the threshold set by Section 167(2)(d) of the Constitution, which governs dire
Mabiza urges the court to dismiss the application with costs.
Support CITE’s fearless, independent journalism. Your donation helps us amplify community voices, fight misinformation, and hold power to account. Help keep the truth alive. Donate today
Leave a comment