Donor-dependent lawyers take Zimbabwe govt to court over PVO Act

The Zimbabwe Lawyers for Human Rights (ZLHR) has filed a landmark application at the High Court, seeking to have several provisions of the amended Private Voluntary Organisations (PVO) Act declared unconstitutional, arguing that the law infringes on fundamental freedoms and criminalises the work of non-governmental organisations.

ZLHR receives funding from a variety of foreign and local sources, including foundations, government organizations, and individual donors. Some of the organizations that have supported ZLHR include the Sigrid Rausing Trust, the Ford Foundation, and the MacArthur Foundation, according to their respective websites.

The legal challenge, which lists the Minister of Public Service, Labour and Social Welfare and the Attorney-General as respondents, marks the most comprehensive legal attempt yet to dismantle the repressive provisions of the PVO Act, which regulates the registration, governance, and funding of NGOs and charities operating in Zimbabwe.

In its application, ZLHR contends that the PVO Act, particularly as amended, constitutes a "fundamental encroachment" on civil society's operations and imposes unconstitutional overregulation and criminalisation of development, human rights, and charitable work. The organisation warns that the restrictive law not only violates rights guaranteed under the Constitution, but also threatens to cost Zimbabwe hundreds of millions of dollars in humanitarian aid intended for the poor and vulnerable.

Among the core constitutional violations cited in the application are infringements on the freedoms of assembly, association, and expression, as well as the rights to administrative justice, property, and a fair hearing under Section 71 of the Constitution.

The lawyers argue that several clauses of the Act are vague, poorly drafted, and grant the Minister sweeping and unchecked powers over the activities of PVOs. These powers, they say, open the door to arbitrary interference and excessive political control of civil society.

"ZLHR is raising multiple constitutional issues including whether or not Section 4(a) of the PVO Amendment Act is incomplete and void for vagueness, and whether Section 4 contradicts Section 9(5) of the same Act, thus creating legal uncertainty and violating Section 68(1) of the Constitution," reads the application.

The organisation also questions whether Section 9(5) unlawfully empowers the Registrar to make unilateral decisions on the registration and cancellation of PVO certificates, without recourse to the oversight board or provision for appeal, which they argue violates Sections 56(1), 68, and 69 of the Constitution.

ZLHR is also challenging Section 13A, which mandates re-registration of PVOs under vaguely defined "material changes," and Section 14, which grants the Minister excessive control over registration decisions. Section 21 is flagged as unconstitutional for allowing the Minister to suspend an entire PVO executive committee and appoint trustees of their choosing.

At the hearing, ZLHR intends to seek relief declaring the offending sections of the Act—specifically Sections 4, 5 as read with 9(5), 6, 13A, 14, and 21—ultra vires the Constitution and therefore invalid.

This legal challenge comes amid growing concerns from local and international human rights organisations that the PVO Amendment Act is being used as a tool to silence dissent, restrict civic space, and clamp down on non-state actors perceived as critical of the government.

While the government has defended the PVO law as a mechanism to improve accountability and national security, critics argue that it is a veiled attempt to stifle legitimate civil society work, especially ahead of future elections.

With the application now before the High Court, the outcome of the case could have significant implications for the future of civic space in Zimbabwe and the operations of hundreds of humanitarian and rights-based organisations across the country.