The High Court of Zimbabwe has ruled that a key provision of the controversial Patriotic Act is unconstitutional.
In a judgment delivered on Wednesday, the court struck down Section 22A (3) of the Criminal Law (Codification and Reform) Amendment Act No. 10 of 2023, declaring it vague, overly broad, and in violation of fundamental rights guaranteed under the country’s Constitution.
The provision had criminalised participation in meetings discussing sanctions against Zimbabwe and allowed penalties such as citizenship revocation, restriction of voting rights, and bans from holding public office.
The court, however, upheld Section 22A (2) of the Act, which criminalises participation in foreign-led efforts to overthrow the government, saying the provision was sufficiently clear and necessary for protecting national sovereignty.
“The applicants have substantiated constitutional invalidity in respect of Section 22A (3),” said Justice Rodgers Manyangadze in the ruling. “The provision lacks precision and creates uncertainty, thereby infringing on rights to freedom of expression, association, and political participation as enshrined in Sections 58, 61, and 67 of the Constitution.”
The case was brought by the Media Alliance of Zimbabwe and rights activist and journalist Zenzele Ndebele, who argued that the broadly-worded law threatened freedom of speech and could be used to target dissenters and journalists. They claimed the legislation risked punishing individuals simply for attending international meetings or engaging in legitimate political discourse.
Lawyers for the government defended the law as a necessary safeguard for state security, but the court found parts of the statute unjustifiably limited constitutional rights.
“Criminal offences must be defined with clarity to avoid ensnaring innocent conduct,” the court ruled, adding that severe penalties such as loss of citizenship or voting rights could not stand without clear legal justification.
The court dismissed the applicants’ challenge to Section 22A (2), which penalises citizens who conspire with foreign powers to overthrow the government, ruling this provision was precise and fell within the state’s right to defend its sovereignty.
There was no order as to costs.
When others look away, we dig deeper. From ZPRA history to local corruption—CITE tells the stories that matter.Keep our journalism independent. Donate here