Constitutional Court Dismisses Challenge To Private Voluntary Organisations Act
Zimbabwe’s highest court has delivered a crushing blow to activists seeking to overturn the controversial Private Voluntary Organisations Act, dismissing their application with the stinging rebuke that they failed to put the public at the centre of their case.
In a unanimous judgment handed down on 16 February 2026, a full bench of the Constitutional Court led by Justice Rita Makarau ruled that applicants Passionate Fuza and Jonah Wakurawarehwa had not proved Parliament failed in its constitutional duties when passing the PVO Act of 2025.
The two activists had approached the court arguing that Parliament violated Section 141 of the Constitution by failing to facilitate proper public participation during the legislative process. They claimed public hearings in Harare and Masvingo were disrupted and ended prematurely, robbing citizens of their chance to have a say on the law that now governs charitable and non-governmental organisations in Zimbabwe.
But the court was having none of it.
Court Slams Applicants For Missing The Point
The Constitutional Court found the applicants’ case fundamentally flawed from the start.
“The applicants have not established that the respondent failed ‘to facilitate public involvement’ in the legislative process,” the Court ruled bluntly. “The application cannot be granted and must be dismissed.”
The judges made it crystal clear that the applicants had approached the matter from the wrong angle entirely.
“They needed to put the public at the centre stage. They did not,” the judgment read.
Justice Makarau, sitting alongside Justices Elizabeth Gwaunza, Paddington Garwe, Anne Gowora, Ben Hlatshwayo, Bharat Patel and Susan Mavangira, emphasised that Section 141 of the Constitution confers a collective right on the public, not an individual guarantee that every single citizen must be personally heard at every meeting.
The court noted that Parliament had actually convened ten nationwide public hearings and provided other avenues for citizens to make submissions. Even if two meetings were disrupted, the applicants failed to show this outweighed the broader participation opportunities available.
“The applicants misconstrued the obligation imposed on it by the Constitution,” the court stated firmly.
President Mnangagwa Removed From Proceedings Early
President Emmerson Mnangagwa was initially cited as the second respondent, represented by Mr Luckson Muradzikwa from the Office of the Attorney-General. However, the applicants were forced to concede they had made no actual allegations against him that could ground a constitutional claim.
“It was conceded that no allegation had been made and proved against the second respondent that he had failed to fulfil a constitutional obligation,” the Court stated. His joinder “was therefore incompetent.”
The President was removed as a party to the proceedings after the court found there was no relief being sought against him and nothing had been pleaded warranting impugning his decision to assent to the Bill.
Activist Arguments Fail To Pass Constitutional Muster
The applicants, represented by Tonderayi Bhatasara of the Zimbabwe Lawyers for Human Rights, had argued that disrupted public hearings invalidated both the legislative process and the President’s subsequent assent to the law.
But the apex court found the evidence thin and the legal basis even thinner.
On the argument that the matter had become moot because the President had already signed the Bill into law, the court actually disagreed with the respondents on that point.
“The mere existence of the law keeps the controversy between the parties live because the validity of the Act depends entirely on the integrity of the legislative process,” the judgment said.
However, that didn’t save the applicants.
The court held that to succeed, applicants had to demonstrate either that Parliament entirely failed to involve the public, or that its facilitation was merely superficial and symbolic, lacking genuine substance. This, the applicants failed to do.
The application was dismissed with no order as to costs, meaning each party covers their own legal expenses.
What The PVO Act Actually Does
Enacted on 11 April 2025 and gazetted as Act No. 1 of 2025, the law introduces sweeping new regulations for non-governmental organisations operating in Zimbabwe. It expands the definition of PVOs to include trusts, legal persons and “beneficial owners.”
The Act prohibits PVOs from supporting or opposing any political party or candidate and grants government authority to suspend leadership of organisations if deemed necessary “in the public interest.” It introduces criminal liability with sentences of up to 35 years for violations related to illicit financing or misrepresentation.
The government claims the law targets terrorism and foreign interference. But the United Nations, Human Rights Watch and local civil society organisations argue it severely restricts freedom of association and expression.
The European Union responded by suspending its 2025 funding for Zimbabwe’s governance programmes, highlighting the government’s failure to uphold its commitment to expand civic space.
Another Challenge Still Pending
A separate constitutional challenge was filed on 24 December 2025 by citizen Youngerson Matete, who alleges the law was birthed through a “legally irregular process” that “flouted the Constitution and the Standing Orders.”
Matete’s application argues that the PVO Bill debated and passed by the National Assembly was fundamentally different from the one later sent to the Senate, with key clauses mysteriously going missing during transmission.
“It is inexplicable that a Bill approved during debate by the National Assembly would reach the Senate, in the same building, with missing clauses,” Matete states in his founding affidavit.
The Attorney General’s Office, led by Virginia Mabiza, filed its opposition on 13 January 2026, arguing the President 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,” Mabiza’s affidavit reads. “He is not constitutionally mandated to audit internal Parliamentary processes.”
That challenge remains pending before the Constitutional Court.
Flipcash is Your Trusted PayPal & Crypto Exchange Partner in Zimbabwe — WhatsApp +263 77 163 9263
The post PVO Act Stands: Constitutional Court Throws Out Challenge, Hands Government Major Victory Over NGOs appeared first on iHarare News.
