News / National
High Court declares key provision of Patriotic Act unconstitutional
22 hrs ago | Views
The High Court of Zimbabwe has struck down a significant part of the controversial Patriotic Act, ruling that Section 22A (3) of the Criminal Law (Codification and Reform) Amendment Act No. 10 of 2023 is unconstitutional.
In a judgment delivered on Wednesday, Justice Rodgers Manyangadze declared the provision vague, overly broad, and in violation of fundamental constitutional rights, including freedom of expression, association, and political participation.
Section 22A (3) criminalised participation in meetings discussing sanctions against Zimbabwe and imposed harsh penalties such as revocation of citizenship, restriction of voting rights, and bans on holding public office.
"The applicants have substantiated constitutional invalidity in respect of Section 22A (3)," Justice Manyangadze said. "The provision lacks precision and creates uncertainty, thereby infringing on rights guaranteed under Sections 58, 61, and 67 of the Constitution."
The case was brought forward by the Media Alliance of Zimbabwe and rights activist and journalist Zenzele Ndebele, who argued that the provision threatened freedom of speech and could be misused to target dissenters, journalists, and individuals attending international meetings or engaging in legitimate political discourse.
Government lawyers defended the law as a necessary measure for protecting national security, but the court found that parts of the statute unjustifiably limited constitutional freedoms.
"Criminal offences must be defined with clarity to avoid ensnaring innocent conduct," the ruling stated. It further noted that severe penalties such as loss of citizenship or voting rights must be justified by clear legal standards.
However, the court upheld Section 22A (2) of the Act, which criminalises participation in foreign-led efforts to overthrow the government, ruling it sufficiently clear and necessary to safeguard national sovereignty.
No order as to costs was issued. The ruling marks a significant judicial check on legislation viewed by many as threatening democratic freedoms in Zimbabwe.
In a judgment delivered on Wednesday, Justice Rodgers Manyangadze declared the provision vague, overly broad, and in violation of fundamental constitutional rights, including freedom of expression, association, and political participation.
Section 22A (3) criminalised participation in meetings discussing sanctions against Zimbabwe and imposed harsh penalties such as revocation of citizenship, restriction of voting rights, and bans on holding public office.
"The applicants have substantiated constitutional invalidity in respect of Section 22A (3)," Justice Manyangadze said. "The provision lacks precision and creates uncertainty, thereby infringing on rights guaranteed under Sections 58, 61, and 67 of the Constitution."
Government lawyers defended the law as a necessary measure for protecting national security, but the court found that parts of the statute unjustifiably limited constitutional freedoms.
"Criminal offences must be defined with clarity to avoid ensnaring innocent conduct," the ruling stated. It further noted that severe penalties such as loss of citizenship or voting rights must be justified by clear legal standards.
However, the court upheld Section 22A (2) of the Act, which criminalises participation in foreign-led efforts to overthrow the government, ruling it sufficiently clear and necessary to safeguard national sovereignty.
No order as to costs was issued. The ruling marks a significant judicial check on legislation viewed by many as threatening democratic freedoms in Zimbabwe.
Source - CITE
