The ruling came
hardly a month after the High Court ruled that section 22A(3) of the same law
also known as the Patriotic Act was unconstitutional.
In the latest
ruling, High Court judge Justice Rodgers Manyangadze struck down section 22A(3)
of the Act, which criminalised participation in meetings intended to harm
Zimbabwe’s “sovereignty or national interest”.
The section
also criminalises calling for a trade boycott, sanctions or attending meetings
where sanctions or other policy matters against Zimbabwe are discussed.
The court found
the language too vague and far-reaching, raising constitutional concerns over
several fundamental rights, including freedom of assembly, association,
expression, the right to a fair trial as well as citizenship and political
rights.
The case was
brought by journalists Valentine Maponga and Paidamoyo Muzulu as well as legal
advocacy organisation Firinne Trust (trading as Veritas).
In their
submissions, they argued that the law risked targeting journalists and
activists for legitimate engagement in international dialogue.
Their lawyer,
Tendai Biti, told the court that section 22A(3) was “hopelessly vague” and
introduced an undefined standard of “intentionally partake” that lacked legal
precision and opened the door to abuse.
Biti warned
that such ambiguity could result in arbitrary arrests and a chilling effect on
citizens exercising their democratic rights, especially when attending meetings
where sanctions or other policy matters are discussed.
Justice
Manyangadze said the lack of clarity created uncertainty around legal
thresholds and could be applied inconsistently by police or prosecutors.
The judge
sharply criticised the section’s imprecision, warning that it created a climate
ripe for arbitrary arrests.
While section
22A(2) included a definition of “actively partake,” the disputed subsection
used the term “intentionally partake” without explanation — a legislative flaw
the court said could result in broad and inconsistent interpretations by law
enforcement.
Of particular
concern were the harsh penalties attached to the provision.
Individuals
found guilty could face the revocation of citizenship, loss of permanent
residency or a 15-year ban from voting or holding public office.
Justice
Manyangadze described the penalties as “drastic and draconian” and inconsistent
with constitutional limits.
While the court
dismissed the challenge against section 22A(2) relating to meetings that
consider or promote military intervention, it emphasised that legislation aimed
at protecting national security should still respect the boundaries of
democratic freedoms and due process.
The decision
also rendered a challenge to Zimbabwe’s death penalty laws moot, noting that
Parliament had recently abolished capital punishment entirely through the Death
Penalty Abolition Act.
The court also
noted that it is the urgent duty of the relevant ministry to rewrite the Act in
a proper form that aligns with the Constitution.
Last month, the
High Court ruled in favour of the Media Alliance of Zimbabwe and Zenzele
Ndebele, a private citizen, who brought a case before the court, arguing that
section 22A(3) and other provisions had high potential for abuse and misuse.
They contended
that the sections had the effect of silencing dissenting voices and were,
therefore, unfair, unnecessary and unreasonable in a democratic society.
They also said
the law did not sufficiently define what constituted “wilfully injuring the
sovereignty and national interest of Zimbabwe”.
The Act created
the crime of “wilfully injuring the sovereignty and national interest of
Zimbabwe” which effectively criminalises civil society groups and human rights
defenders who criticise the government at international forums and prohibits
them from seeking external avenues for accountability for rights violations.
In its ruling,
the High Court stated that the drastic penalties prescribed under section
22A(3) of the Act, which include life imprisonment, death, termination of
citizenship and suspensions from voting and holding public office, infringed on
various sections of the Zimbabwean Constitution.
Observers have
previously said the Act should be repealed in its entirety.
In 2023,
President Emmerson Mnangagwa signed the Patriot Bill, which deals with wilfully
injuring the sovereignty and national interest of Zimbabwe.
The law
provides for severe penalties for those charged with damaging the country’s
interests.
It also
stipulates the execution of any person found to have advocated for
international sanctions which harm the country or its people. Newsday
0 comments:
Post a Comment