Webb, Low and Barry

20/08/2025

LITIGATION IS THE PROCESS OF TAKING LEGAL ACTION.

Our litigation / commercial department is comprised of some of the most experienced lawyers in the country. Our 7 attorneys practice both criminal and civil litigation in a variety of fora including the Supreme Court, the High Courts, the Magistrates Court, the Administrative Court and the Labour Court: The fora have particular expertise in Mining law and Constitutional law.

In line with the international trends, the firm also employs alternative dispute resolution methods to attempt to repair business relationships and ensure that our clients get the best out of every deal. Our firm can either represent a client in these negotiations or provide arbitration and/or mediation services.

The firm also has a long history in constitutional matters and a firm commitment to human rights in Zimbabwe. Members of the firm played a major role in the development of the new Zimbabwean constitution, which became law in May 2013. The firm strongly believes that such contributions are part of its corporate social responsibility and its duty to the nation.

For further information please contact Webb, Low and Barry through our email address: info@webblow.co.zw OR through our website: https://webblowbarry.com/contact-us

19/08/2025

BILL WATCH
PARLIAMENTARY COMMITTEES SERIES 18/2025
[16th August 2025]

Open Committee Meetings Next Week
There are four open parliamentary committee meetings scheduled for the coming week, as indicated below.

“Open”, in the context of committee meetings, means that members of the public are entitled to attend, but as observers only. Members of the public who wish to attend meetings in the New Parliament Building must produce their IDs to gain entry to the Building.
Monday 18th August at 10 a.m.

Portfolio Committee on Defence, Home Affairs, Security Services and War Veterans Affairs
Oral evidence from the Secretary of Home Affairs and Cultural Heritage and the chairperson of the Lotteries and Gaming Board on issues concerning corporate social responsibility raised during field visits to projects being implemented by the Board
Venue: Committee Room 1, first floor, New Parliament Building.
Tuesday 19th August at 10 a.m.

Thematic Committee on Peace and Security
Oral evidence from the Ministry of Women Affairs, Community, Small and Medium Enterprises Development on implementation of the policy on micro, small and medium enterprises
Venue: Committee Room 3, first floor, New Parliament Building.
Tuesday 19th August at 10 a.m.

Thematic Committee on Gender and Development
Presentation of the 2025 national gender policy by the Minister of Women Affairs, Community, Small and Medium Enterprises
Venue: Committee Room 1, first floor, New Parliament Building.
Tuesday 19th August at 11:30 a.m.

Portfolio Committee on Health and Child Care
Submissions from Mr Kambarami on his petition concerning rehabilitation centres. The committee will then go into closed session to consider his submissions.
Venue: Committee Room 14, third floor, New Parliament Building.

Photo Credit: FreeP*k

18/08/2025

ECONOMIC GOVERNANCE WATCH 2/2025
[14th August 2025]
Lithium Smuggling

Introduction
Zimbabwe continues to lose millions of dollars through the smuggling of raw lithium by some miners, despite the government imposing a ban on the export of raw lithium in 2022. The ban, which was imposed by SI 213 of 2022, was intended to push miners to process lithium domestically so that the country could earn more by exporting processed ore. In 2023 the ban was extended to cover all other base minerals (i.e. minerals apart from precious metals and precious stones); this was done by SI 5 of 2023.

Some miners however have continued to export raw lithium by presenting false declarations at ports of exit, as unearthed by a recent Global Press Journal report. See also a paper issued last year by the Africa Policy Research Institute.

In June this year, following a Cabinet meeting, the Minister of Mines and Mining Development announced a new policy under which the export of lithium concentrates would be banned from January 2027. The new policy is outlined in a post-Cabinet press briefing of the 10th June
These measures are inadequate, however, as they have not dealt decisively with smugglers. Smuggling raw lithium remains a profitable activity because a lack of electronic scanning machines at the country’s borders makes it difficult to detect, and the smugglers who are detected are not severely punished.

Who is involved in the smuggling?
Available evidence points to collusion between miners, transporters, freight and shipping agents and border officials. The miners involved are mostly Chinese, according to mining analysts – which is not surprising, because China controls about 90 per cent of Zimbabwe’s lithium mining sector. The miners falsify documents of goods being shipped, and often customs officers and agents at the borders turn a blind eye and allow the shipments to pass through to their destination, principally China. Customs officers are not well paid – most civil servants earn on average US$300 a month – so they are easy targets for bribes by companies that are seeking to make maximum profits.

What’s important about lithium?
Lithium has become a very important resource in the world, particularly during this era of energy transition forced by the need to protect the climate. Most countries are moving towards green energy, the use of renewable sources of power such as hydropower, windmills and solar, and are moving away from vehicles powered by petroleum fuels in favour of electric vehicles.
Both electric vehicles and solar energy need batteries that are effective and efficient and can store energy for long periods. Lithium is one of the materials used to manufacture batteries that meet these specifications.

What has to be done?
To safeguard Zimbabwe’s lithium reserves and get the most benefit from them, and to curb rampant smuggling, the Government should immediately consider the following measures:

• Deterrent sentences and fines. The laws on smuggling should be amended to reflect the severity of the cases of smuggling, particularly of mineral resources that should also fund social services. Particularly heavy sentences should be imposed on officials who facilitate smuggling.

• Withdrawal of mining licences. Where mining companies are convicted of smuggling or falsifying information on export documents, their licences should be withdrawn. This should be an almost automatic consequence of a smuggling conviction.

• Improving border management and staff welfare. The Government should fund the modernisation of border posts and install electronic scanners. Officials who work at borders should be well remunerated to avoid their seeking bribes.

• Compliance and enforcement of laws. Generally, the Government should look at increasing compliance with the law by miners and should ensure that all laws are enforced strictly.

Conclusion
It is apparent that smuggling of lithium still continues at unacceptable levels in Zimbabwe. It can be curbed if the Government changes its approach to dealing with corruption, illicit financial flows and strict enforcement of laws. More than lip service must be paid to the mantra from above – “zero tolerance to corruption”. Corruption in all its forms must be stamped out completely.

Photo Credit to Dreamstime

14/08/2025

Webb, Low and Barry – A Brief History

In 1897 Rhodesia Railways asked one of Cape Town’s top lawyers Mr Webb to come to Bulawayo to open Bulawayo’s first legal firm – Webb Low & Barry.

Webb quickly established a firm which provided top quality legal services to the fledgling colony. Webb soon invited Henry Low, another lawyer practicing in South Africa, to join him.

Please click on the link below for more information...
https://webblowbarry.com/about-us

14/08/2025

ECONOMIC GOVERNANCE WATCH 1/2025
[6th August 2025]
The Energy Crisis : Need to Re-look at the Energy Mix

Introduction
Zimbabwe is facing a serious energy crisis that has resulted in long hours of load shedding, sometimes as long as 16 hours a day. The country’s energy demands at present are estimated at 4000 megawatts [MW] of electricity whereas we currently produce only about 1400 MW.

This is unsustainable and many households and industries are now turning to their own private sources of energy like solar plants, diesel generators and windmills. Poor working-class and peasant families, who cannot afford these things, are bearing the brunt of the energy crisis, but everyone is suffering because electricity generated from private sources is generally more expensive than electricity from the national grid, and goods produced using privately generated electricity are correspondingly more expensive.

The current energy mix

Zimbabwe gets its electricity from several sources.

Hydro-electric Power
The country currently has two hydro-electric power stations built on the Kariba Dam – Kariba North and Kariba South. They have a combined output of 1200 MW but the current output is less than a quarter because of breakdowns, obsolete equipment and, in recent years, low levels of water in the dam for electricity generation.

Private mini-hydros
There are several small hydro-electric power stations across the country with outputs ranging from 2 MW to 5 MW. They are however for the use of their private owners, though they re-channel excess power into the national grid.

Thermal Power Stations
Zimbabwe potentially has four thermal power stations: Hwange, Munyati, Bulawayo and Harare. Hwange has the largest output at around 600 MW after its recent refurbishment, which was paid for by a Chinese loan [increasing our national debt]. Munyati, Bulawayo and Harare power stations still need to be refurbished before they can contribute anything to the national power grid.

Dema Diesel Power Plant
The US$200 million-dollar Dema Diesel power plant remains unused after being commissioned in 2016. Many doubted the wisdom of setting up a diesel power plant, which is expensive to run, at a time when Zimbabwe was struggling to import fuel.

Solar farms
The Zimbabwe Electricity Supply Authority [ZESA] appointed a local company, Intratek Zimbabwe headed by Mr Wicknell Chivhayo, to set up a US$100 million solar farm project at Gwanda. The feasibility of the project is still being assessed yet the government has already paid Intratek US$5 million in advance. The project is riddled in legal wrangles after ZESA tried to cancel the contract.
Private players are setting up solar farms like the one in Nyabira set up by Centragrid and the one in Selous established by Zimplats. Econet through its subsidiary, DPA, has started putting solar panels on roofs of large warehouses for private energy use.

Power imports
Zimbabwe imports power from DRC’s SNEL, Mozambique’s HCB and South Africa’s Eskom, but our ability to continue these imports has been imperilled by swelling debts owed by ZESA to the three power companies. The foreign currency scarcity has exacerbated the situation as it can no longer enjoy power on debt, especially when ZESA’s and country’s financial stability is perilous.

New investments into energy
Despite the efforts mentioned above, Zimbabwe is still facing an acute energy crisis and new sources of energy have to be found urgently. Possible sources include the Batoka Gorge Hydroelectric Project. More solar farms could be established as Zimbabwe has fair warm weather for most of the year. Incentives could be put in place to encourage electricity consumers, both commercial and domestic, to switch to the use of solar.

A New Energy Policy
Zimbabwe needs a new comprehensive energy policy that looks at the energy mix and funding mechanisms. Above all the policy should include a transition to green energy with clear time-lines drawn up in the light of the country’s economic and social context.
The policy should be drawn up so as to involve all stakeholders – domestic consumers, industrial consumers, funders, climate change activists and the government.
Most multilateral funding partners are now inclined to finance clean energy, that is hydroelectric power stations, solar farms and wind power. Zimbabwe however should remain alive to the fact that the country still has extensive reserves of coal that can be used cheaply to run thermal power stations. This should be only a pro tem solution as coal power is very polluting. As to financing, we should look at opportunities for domestic resource mobilisation, including the use of pension funds, because such national projects are spurs to economic growth.

Conclusion
Zimbabwe will need as much as US$10 billion to invest in energy production over the next decade to avert the ongoing energy crisis. In establishing new energy projects we should re-examine our energy mix and adopt measures to enhance energy transition. The development of a new energy policy should be framed from an all stakeholders’ approach to gain support from all players.

Photo credit: FreeP*k

08/08/2025

04/08/2025

BILL WATCH 24/2025
[2nd August July 2025]
The Mines and Minerals Bill : Unconstitutional Clauses Remain from Previous Bill

The Mines and Minerals Bill [https://www.veritaszim.net/node/7495] was published in the Gazette on the 25th June. It has been given its first reading in the National Assembly and the Parliamentary Legal Committee [PLC] is currently examining it to assess whether or not it is consistent with the Constitution.

The PLC examined an earlier Mines and Minerals Bill in 2022 and found several clauses to be unconstitutional. In this bulletin we shall look at the current Bill to see if the unconstitutional aspects of the earlier Bill which the PLC identified have been retained or rectified.

The PLC’s Report on the Previous Bill
Three years ago the Government published a very similar Bill, which lapsed when Parliament was dissolved immediately before the 2023 general election. That Bill, as we have said, was examined by the PLC and found to be unconstitutional in several respects. The PLC’s adverse report can be accessed on the Veritas website [https://www.veritaszim.net/node/6299].

The PLC found that the following provisions of the old Bill were unconstitutional:
• Clause 6(4)(a) (its equivalent is clause 6(4) of the new Bill), which stated that anyone wishing to mine a strategic mineral had to demonstrate a capacity to invest at least US $100 million or a greater or lesser amount prescribed by the Minister.

The PLC found this was unconstitutional on the following grounds:
1. The amount was so high it would prevent ordinary citizens from mining strategic minerals and would amount to unfair discrimination on economic grounds, violating section 56(3) of the Constitution.

2. It would also violate section 13(4) of the Constitution, which requires the State to ensure that local communities benefit from resources in their areas.

3. The Minister’s power to vary the amount was open to abuse and would violate the principle that laws must be certain, which is an important element of the rule of law enshrined in section 3 of the Constitution.

Does the new Bill remedy these defects? NO. The new clause 6(4)(a) requires miners to demonstrate an ability to invest “such minimum sum as the Minister may prescribe” and lays down no specific amount for the investment. From the tenor of the clause however the prescribed amount will be very high, beyond the reach of all but the most serious miners [the memorandum to the Bill in fact says that miners will have to commit to invest at least US $1 million].

Furthermore, there are no guidelines or parameters limiting the Minister’s discretion, so the Minister’s power to fix and vary the amount will be just as wide as in the former Bill.
• Clause 8(3)(a) (clause 9(3)(a) in the new Bill), which stated that members of the Mining Affairs Board who were public servants should remain members “indefinitely”. The PLC found the clause violated principles of good governance laid down in section 9 of the Constitution, which demanded that members of the Board should serve fixed terms. “No office on any Board,” the PLC said, “can be allowed to run in perpetuity.”

Does the new Bill remedy the defect? NO. Clause 9(3)(a) of the new Bill says that members hold office for “a renewable term of four years”, which means that their terms can be renewed indefinitely – which the PLC decided was unconstitutional in the earlier Bill.
• Clause 12 (clause 13 of the new Bill), which permitted the Mining Affairs Board to state questions of law for decision by the Supreme Court, and gave the Court power to decide those questions. The PLC found this provision to be unconstitutional because section 168 of the Constitution declares the Supreme Court to be a court of appeal which hears only cases coming from courts, not from bodies such as the Mining Affairs Board.

Does the new Bill remedy this defect? Yes, but only by creating another constitutional difficulty. According to clause 13 of the new Bill, the Mining Affairs Board will be able to state questions of law to be decided by the Administrative Court. This is legally permissible, though the High Court would be a better forum to decide questions of law.

Although the Bill cures that defect, it goes on to create a worse one. Under clause 331 the Chief Justice will be obliged to set up a new Mining Court as a specialised Division of the High Court and, once he has done so, references in the Bill to the Administrative Court will have to be construed as references to the new Mining Court – except that the Administrative Court will “continue to have exclusive jurisdiction” over certain matters set out in the Eighth Schedule to the Bill. Not only is this very confusing, it is also unconstitutional because section 171 of the Constitution gives the High Court original jurisdiction over “all civil and criminal matters throughout Zimbabwe”. By purporting to give the Administrative Court exclusive jurisdiction over some mining disputes, the Bill seeks to deprive the High Court of its constitutional jurisdiction – which it cannot do.
• Clause 35(4) (clause 37(5) of the new Bill) which stated that if a landowner refused permission for prospecting to be carried out near his or her homestead, the landowner would be prohibited from acquiring mining rights over the land for ten years. The PLC considered this violated landowners’ property rights under section 71 of the Constitution and unfairly favoured the rights of miners over those of landholders.

Does the new Bill remedy this defect? No. The new provision is exactly the same.
• Clause 37 (clause 39 of the new Bill), which allowed landholders to register up to 100 hectares of their arable and pastoral land with a provincial mining director in order to protect the land against prospecting and pe***ng. The PLC considered this prejudiced landholders and farmers at the expense of miners. The PLC was also of the view that registration of land was the prerogative of the Ministry responsible for lands, not mines, and therefore the provision violated section 194(1) of the Constitution, which required government institutions to co-operate with each other.

Does the new Bill remedy this defect? No. The new provision is exactly the same.
• Clause 59 (clause 61 of the new Bill), which stated that if a miner had more claims than he or she had disclosed when registering his or her block of claims, the provincial mining director could demand payment from the miner for the extra claims. The PLC thought this provision, like many others in the Bill, gave too much power to provincial mining directors and would encourage corruption: the power to demand and receive money should be vested in the Mining Affairs Board.

Does the new Bill remedy this defect? No. The new provision is the same.
We should add that neither the old nor the new Bill seems to give miners a right to appeal against decisions of provincial mining directors so they are left without a proper remedy if directors incorrectly assess the number of their claims.
• Clauses 72 and 111 (clauses 74 and 113 of the new Bill): clause 72(8) of the old Bill declared that there would be no appeal against certain decisions of the Mining Affairs Board, and clause 111 made a similar provision for certain decisions of the Minister – the decisions would be final. The PLC considered these clauses violated section 68(3) of the Constitution, which states that the law must provide for a review of administrative decisions.
Does the new Bill remedy these defects? Yes, but only by creating fresh constitutional difficulties. The new clause 74 (equivalent to clause 72 of the old Bill) now says that decisions of the Mining Affairs Board will be reviewable by the Administrative Court [which will actually be the new Mining Court – see above] but only on very narrow procedural grounds specified in the clause. Clause 113 of the new Bill – equivalent to clause 111 of the old Bill – makes a similar provision for decisions of the Minister. The problem here is that section 68 of the Constitution gives everyone, including miners, the right to:
“administrative conduct that is lawful, prompt, efficient, reasonable, proportionate, impartial and both substantively and procedurally fair”.

The procedural grounds of review permitted by clauses 74 and 113 are far narrower than those mandated by the Constitution – in particular, they will not allow courts to decide whether the decisions they are reviewing are reasonable, proportionate and fair, which is what the Constitution requires them to do. Hence the new clauses are unconstitutional.
• Clause 130 (clause 132 of the new Bill): This clause stated that the grant of a mining lease over an area automatically cancelled the registration of all mining locations within the area. The PLC considered this provision deprived the miners concerned of their property rights without the safeguards set out in section 71(3) of the Constitution: in particular, the miners were not to be given notice of the cancellation, there was no provision for the government to get a court order confirming the cancellation, and the holders of the mining locations were not entitled to compensation.
Does the new Bill remedy this defect? No. The new provision is the same.
• Clause 131 (clause 133 of the new Bill), which prohibited anyone from challenging the validity of a mining lease. The PLC considered this violated section 68 of the Constitution, which states that everyone whose rights have been affected by administrative conduct – in this case the grant of a mining lease – has the right to be given written reasons for the conduct. More pertinently, the provision violated section 69 of the Constitution, which gives everyone the right to have their disputes resolved by a court or other tribunal. This means that a miner whose mining rights have been cancelled because of the grant of a mining lease to someone else, for example, or the holder of a mining lease who thinks he or she should have been granted a larger one, must have a right to take the matter to court.
Does the new Bill remedy this defect? No. The new provision is the same.
• Clauses 246 and 251 (clauses 248 and 253 of the new Bill): These clauses allow mining locations that are not being worked to be expropriated and transferred to the Minister of Mines. The PLC felt that they should be transferred to the State, not the Minister, presumably to avoid corruption.
Does the new Bill remedy this defect? No. The new provisions are identical.
• Clause 259: This clause prohibited officials in the Ministry of Mines from holding any financial or proprietary interest, direct or indirect, in mines or mining companies. The clause went on to say that in any legal proceedings accused officials would bear the burden of proving they did not act contrary to their duties as public officers. The PLC thought that shifting the burden of proof was unconstitutional.
Does the new Bill remedy this defect? Yes, but in a shocking way. The entire clause has been omitted, so the Bill now contains nothing to prevent officials in the Ministry from acquiring mining interests for themselves. The opportunities this gives for corrupt behaviour are obvious. Admittedly there are other laws that penalise corruption – sections 173 and 174 of the Criminal Law Code, for example – but omitting the clause from the Bill sends entirely the wrong message to public servants, the message being: Join the Ministry of Mines and get rich.
• Clause 298 (clause 308 of the new Bill): This clause made it a criminal offence for persons who discovered precious stones not to notify a provincial mining director within ten days of the discovery. The PLC felt that the clause imposed absolute liability on persons who discovered precious stones, even if they did not know the nature of what they had discovered, and so the clause was unconstitutional.

Does the new Bill remedy this defect? No. The new provision remains the same. The defect would be very easy to put right, simply by adding words imposing criminal liability only on persons who fail to report their discovery “knowingly and without lawful excuse”.

Conclusion
In this bulletin we have confined ourselves to seeing if the constitutional problems the PLC found in the earlier Bill have been rectified in the new Bill, and we have demonstrated quite clearly that they have not. There are many other defects in the Bill which we have not touched on, and not just constitutional ones. We shall deal with them in future bulletins.

Photo Credit: Unsplash

15/07/2025

BILL WATCH 20/2025
[11th July 2025]
The Broadcasting Services Amendment Act

In Bill Watch 3/2025 we analysed the Broadcasting Services Amendment Bill before it was considered by the National Assembly. The Bill has now been passed by both Houses of Parliament with some amendments, and was published in the Gazette on the 23rd May as Act No. 2 of 2025. It can be accessed on the Veritas website.

Concerns have been expressed about several aspects of the Act, particularly:
• The effect of the Act on freedom of expression, and
• The provision requiring vehicle radios to be licensed.
We shall deal with these in turn. In what follows we shall refer to the Act – i.e. Act 2 of 2025 – as “the amending Act”.

Freedom of Expression
In Bill Watch 3/2025 we noted that what is now the amending Act would add a new objective for the Broadcasting Services Act, namely to develop freedom of expression by:
“providing … programming that reflects Zimbabwean attitudes, opinions, ideas, values and artistic creativity.”

As we said in that Bill Watch, this is not likely to enhance freedom of expression because reflecting existing Zimbabwean attitudes, opinions, ideas and values will not encourage the development of new ones and may shut out foreign opinions and ideas. What it will do is to give effect to the Government’s new media policy, one of whose objectives is:
“to nurture and instil national values, ethics and citizenship, promoting a shared understanding of Zimbabwe’s history, vision, and developmental aspirations”.

Unfortunately “national values” in this context are likely to be distorted to mean the values of the ruling ZANU-PF party, so the Broadcasting Act will be used to ensure those values are disseminated to the exclusion of all else. Anyone querying those values may be prosecuted under section 31 (“publishing or communicating false statements prejudicial to the State”) or section 33 (“undermining authority of or insulting President”) of the Criminal Law Code.

Membership of the Broadcasting Authority of Zimbabwe
Up till now the Authority has consisted of 12 members appointed by the President, three of whom were appointed from a list submitted by the parliamentary Committee on Standing Rules and Orders. The amending Act has reduced the Board to seven members, at least three of whom must be women, appointed by the President after consulting the Minister. The parliamentary committee has no role to play in the appointments.

This will bring the Authority more directly under the control of the President and, as we pointed out in our earlier Bill Watch, it is inconsistent with the African Charter on Broadcasting which, in article 2 of Part 1, states:
“All formal powers in the areas of broadcast and telecommunications regulation should be exercised by public authorities which are protected against interference, particularly of a political or economic nature, by, among other things, an appointments process for members which is open, transparent, involves the participation of civil society, and is not controlled by any particular political party.”

Again, freedom of expression will not be enhanced by this amendment – quite the opposite, in fact.

On a more positive note, the terms of service of members and staff of the Authority are now aligned to the Public Entities Corporate Governance Act, which means appointments of senior staff will be based on merit, renewal of their contracts will depend on their performance, and they will have to declare conflicts of interest.

Community broadcasting licences
Community broadcasting licences are issued to persons who wish to cater to the interests of particular communities. The amending Act alters the requirements for issuing these licences in order to ensure that members of the communities are involved in the licensees’ operations and are represented on the licensees’ governing bodies. This is eminently sensible. However, the Act does not clarify how far community licensees may venture into politics. It should have clarified the point because community licensees are prohibited from broadcasting “any political matter”, and “political matter” is defined broadly so as to cover almost any public issue of legitimate interest to local communities, whether it be repairing school buildings, improving roads, improving rural water supplies, etc.. Hence community broadcasters are reluctant to raise such issues for fear of breaching the conditions of their licences – which inhibits freedom of expression. An amendment restricting the words “any political matter” to party political matters would have been helpful.

Vehicle radio licences
Section 13 of the amending Act has caused concern by prohibiting the issue of vehicle licences and insurance to persons and companies that do not have “current radio licences” unless the owners of the vehicles have been exempted or the vehicles are shown not to be equipped with radios.

In fact, as we pointed out in our earlier Bill Watch, this provision does not change the law much if at all, because persons who own or drive vehicles equipped with radios are already supposed to have an appropriate licence for the radios [normally a “sound – employer owned vehicle licence” or a less expensive “sound – private vehicle licence”]. The new provision actually confuses things by allowing drivers and car owners to avoid taking out vehicle radio licences if they can show they have “current radio licences”, which could mean the much cheaper licences for radios in their urban or rural homes.

All the new provision really does is make it more difficult to evade the existing obligation for vehicle owners to take out licences if their vehicles are equipped with radios.

The National Competitiveness Commission has issued a perceptive analysis of this provision, in which it makes the following points:
• The fees for vehicle radio licences are so high that companies will have to pay US $200 a year per vehicle for the licences alone, which is a burden that will fall particularly heavily on companies owning fleets of vehicles.
• The high cost of complying with the law may be an incentive for companies to try to evade it through bribery and fraud; in other words, the new provision may lead to increased corruption, particularly if the exemption procedures are not transparent.
• Zimbabwe is the only country in SADC that imposes a licence fee for vehicle radios.
• Unpopular laws, like this one, that are seen as coercive are likely to deter investors, dampen the business climate and reduce trust in government.
• On a more positive note, there are about 1,2 million vehicles in Zimbabwe so the radio licence fees are likely to generate substantial revenue for the ZBC which, if properly utilised, may improve the quality of its programmes.

To ameliorate the adverse effects of the new provision, the Commission recommends that lower licence fees should be levied on companies that have fleets of vehicles, and that companies should be given tax credits or deductions for paying the fees. To build up trust, the Commission suggests, the ZBC should publish detailed reports on how it spends its licence revenues.

There is a further point which the Commission did not mention, probably because it falls outside the Commission’s mandate. It is this: compelling more people to pay higher fees to the ZBC makes it even more important for the ZBC to comply with section 61(2) of the Constitution, which requires all State-owned media to be impartial and to afford fair opportunity for the presentation of divergent views and dissenting opinions.

Conclusion
When we examined the Broadcasting Services Amendment Bill in our earlier bulletin (Bill Watch 3/2025) we were concerned about its impact on freedom of expression and media pluralism. Now that the Bill has been published as an Act, those concerns remain. Apart from the matters we have already mentioned in this bulletin:
• The Act does not clarify the role of the Zimbabwe Media Commission in relation to broadcasting. It should have given the Commission specific statutory powers enabling it to exercise its constitutional role of monitoring broadcasting in the public interest.
• No attempt is made to give Parliament power to monitor the activities of the Broadcasting Authority of Zimbabwe
• A provision in the Bill, which would have allowed foreigners to hold up to 40 per cent of the shares in licensed broadcasters, was dropped during the Bill’s passage through Parliament. This deprives the broadcasting sector of much-needed foreign investment.

In sum, the Act does not demonstrate a commitment on the part of the State to promote a truly independent and diverse media environment in Zimbabwe.

Photo Credit: Free P*k - Prostooleh