Constitutional Court thumps up PVO Act 2025

The Constitutional Court of Zimbabwe has dismissed an application seeking to invalidate the Private Voluntary Organisations Act, 2025, ruling that no constitutional breach was established in the law's passage.

In a judgment delivered on 16 February 2026, a full bench led by Justice Rita Makarau, sitting alongside Justices Elizabeth Gwaunza, Paddington Garwe, Anne Gowora, Ben Hlatshwayo, Bharat Patel and Susan Mavangira, found that the applicants - Passionate Fuza and Jonah Wakurawarehwa - had failed to prove that the Parliament of Zimbabwe neglected its constitutional obligations under Section 141 during the legislative process.

The applicants had argued that public hearings in Harare and Masvingo were disrupted, allegedly preventing meaningful public input on the Bill. They contended that this invalidated both the legislative process and President Emmerson Mnangagwa's subsequent assent to the law.

However, the Court found the evidence insufficient and the legal argument fundamentally flawed.

"The applicants have not established that the respondent failed ‘to facilitate public involvement' in the legislative process," the Court ruled.

"The application cannot be granted and must be dismissed."

During the hearing, President Mnangagwa was removed from the proceedings after the applicants conceded that no actionable constitutional violation had been alleged against him.

"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, adding that his joinder "was therefore incompetent."

The apex court clarified that Section 141 of the Constitution confers a collective right on the public at large, not an individual entitlement guaranteeing that every citizen must personally be heard at each public meeting.

The bench further observed that the applicants focused narrowly on their own alleged exclusion rather than demonstrating systemic denial of participation.

"They needed to put the public at the centre stage. They did not," the judgment read.

The Court noted that Parliament had convened ten nationwide public hearings and provided additional avenues for written submissions. Even if two meetings were disrupted, the judges held that this did not outweigh the broader opportunities afforded to the public.

"The applicants misconstrued the obligation imposed on it by the Constitution," the ruling stated.

Addressing arguments that the matter had become moot after the President signed the Bill into law, the Court disagreed.

"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.

The applicants were represented by Tonderayi Bhatasara of the Zimbabwe Lawyers for Human Rights.

The application was dismissed with no order as to costs.