Insults No Longer a Crime: High Court Declares Criminal Insult Law Unconstitutional

High Court Rules: Insults No Longer a Crime in Zimbabwe

The High Court of Zimbabwe has ruled that insulting other people is not a criminal offence, and individuals should not be arrested for such actions. In a landmark decision, the court declared that making insults a crime is unconstitutional. Section 95(1)(a) of the Criminal Law (Codification and Reform) Act, which criminalized insults, was deemed invalid and unconstitutional.

High Court judge Justice Joel Mambara, who delivered the ruling, described the law as “vague, overbroad, and disproportionately limiting the right to freedom of expression.” He highlighted that the law failed to clearly define what constitutes an “insult” or how someone’s dignity could be “seriously impaired.” This ambiguity, he noted, allowed for excessive interpretation and unfair enforcement.

However, the ruling does not mean people can insult others without consequences. Individuals who feel insulted can still sue for damages in civil court, where cases are resolved without criminal penalties. Justice Mambara stated, “less restrictive means—such as civil remedies—are available to achieve this purpose without resorting to criminal sanctions.”

This decision is a significant step in protecting free speech and aligns Zimbabwe with international standards on human rights. However, the ruling will only take full effect once the Constitutional Court confirms it.

Also Read: Women Raped by Husbands and Pregnant Children Have a Right to Abortion: High Court Redefines Abortion Rights

High Court Questions Insult Law

Justice Mambara explained that the law went too far in restricting free speech.

“Section 95(1)(a) imposes greater restrictions on freedom of expression than necessary and allows for subjective enforcement,” he said as quoted by Zimlive.

The law had made it a crime to insult someone in a way that “seriously impairs” their dignity. However, it did not explain what these terms meant, leaving the police and courts to decide on a case-by-case basis.

Mambara said this approach failed the test of proportionality required by the Constitution. He added,

“The vagueness of the law further exacerbates its unconstitutionality, as it does not provide clear guidance on what constitutes criminal conduct.”

Although criminal charges for insults are no longer valid, civil remedies remain an option for individuals who believe their dignity has been harmed.

Family Dispute Sparks Case

The case that led to this ruling involved Amanda Cohen, who was convicted of insulting her nephew, Aron Vico, during a family argument about inheritance. The argument happened after the death of Cohen’s father, the owner of Waverly Blankets.

Cohen reportedly called Vico a “thief” and a “gay boy,” which Vico said caused him emotional distress. Cohen argued that her words were said in anger and reflected her frustration over the ongoing family feud. She was found guilty in a Magistrates’ Court and sentenced to community service.

Her lawyer, Tendai Biti, appealed the case, arguing that the law used to convict her was unclear and gave law enforcement too much power. He also said the law unfairly restricted freedom of speech.

“The law is vague and grants excessive discretion, which risks violating the right to equal protection and freedom of expression,” Biti said.

What Happens Next?

Although the High Court struck down the law, its decision must be confirmed by the Constitutional Court of Zimbabwe before it takes effect.

Justice Mambara noted that the law contradicted international treaties that Zimbabwe has signed, such as the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights. These treaties emphasise freedom of expression and encourage civil, rather than criminal, remedies for insults.