Government’s widely publicised ban on night vending has effectively faltered, following widespread resistance and implementation failure just months after its announcement.
The policy,
intended to restore order and formalise the economy, has exposed a deep
disconnect between official decrees and economic realities on the ground.
Authorities,
led by Local Government and Public Works minister Daniel Garwe, announced the
immediateban in early August, citing public health concerns and illicit
activities.
The minister
stated that night vending fostered illicit drug and substance dealings, which
he labelled a threat to national security and public health.
The government
argued that the move was necessary to protect formal businesses and align with
its broader economic vision.
However, the
directive was met with immediate vehement opposition.
Vendors
Initiative for Social and Economic Transformation (Viset) executive director
Samuel Wadzai said the proposed ban was ill-informed and unfair.
“This proposed
ban was ill-informed and unfair, particularly because it disregards the
livelihoods of countless vendors who rely on night sales to support their
families,” Wadzai said.
He said night
vending represented an economic necessity rather than a choice for many
workers.
“Night vending
is not merely a matter of choice for many; it is a necessity driven by economic
circumstances and the need for flexible working hours,” Wadzai said.
“By
criminalising this segment of the economy, the government risks pushing vendors
into deeper poverty and increasing unemployment.”
Vendor unions
and legal experts condemned the move as economically devastating and legally
questionable.
The National
Vendors Union of Zimbabwe warned that the ban will cripple livelihoods in a
struggling economy and risked provoking social unrest.
Constitutional
lawyer Advocate Fadzayi Mahere challenged the legitimacy of the ban, saying:
“As a matter of law, you have no power to ban trade or any other activity by
Press statement.”
Mahere argued
that the policy was unconstitutional and failed to address the root causes of
poverty that drive citizens into informal trade.
On the streets,
the ban has proven largely unenforceable.
By late
October, vendors in major cities like Harare and Bulawayo continued to operate
illegally in undesignated areas, defying the government ultimatum.
Lack of
affordable viable alternatives has been a key factor in the ban’s failure.
Designated
vending sites are often overcrowded and the associated fees are prohibitively
expensive for many, forcing them back to the streets to earn a living.
Viset said
there was need for a collaborative approach in addressing the challenges in the
informal economy.
“To truly
address the challenges within the informal economy, we must prioritise dialogue
and engagement,” Wadzai said.
“Restrictions
and bans are not sustainable solutions.
“Instead,
constructive conversations between the government, local authorities and
vendors are essential to identify practical solutions.”
The
organisation expressed its readiness to work with authorities.
“At Viset, we
are always ready and willing to engage with the government and local
authorities.
“We believe
that through collaborative efforts, we can forge pathways that accommodate the
realities of informal workers while also addressing any concerns related to
urban planning, safety and public health,” Wadzai said.
“Lasting
solutions will only come through understanding and co-operation, not through
punitive measures.”
Tinashe Moyo, a
vendor, who sells electrical accessories in the Harare city centre, asked:
“Where does the government expect me to get money for school fees and rent if I
do not work at night?
“During the
day, I compete with hundreds of others. Night time is when I make real income
to feed my family.”
Economists
pointed to the fundamental mismatch between the policy and Zimbabwe’s economic
structure.
“The informal
sector employs over 90% of the workforce and contributes significantly to GDP,”
noted independent economist Prosper Mutambi.
“When you
announce a ban without viable alternatives, you’re essentially attacking the
very survival mechanisms people have developed in response to formal economic
contraction.”
The government
had designated formal vending sites as alternatives, but vendors found them
impractical and expensive.
“They want me
to pay US$50 weekly rent at Copacabana, but my entire profit might not reach
US$30 for the night,” said Miriam Chidemo, who sells fresh vegetables.
“The designated
sites are too far from customers and the fees for stalls are exorbitant.”
Economic
analysts pointed out that the failed implementation reflected broader
governance challenges.
“This isn’t the
first time we’ve seen a policy collapse due to inadequate consultation and
planning,” Mutambi added.
“The government
must recognise that the informal economy isn’t going away.
“Smart policy
would focus on integration and support, not eradication.”
The Local
Government ministry maintained that the ban remained in effect, despite its
apparent failure on the ground. Newsday
0 comments:
Post a Comment