Oppression: Zimbabwe's President Emmerson Mnangagwa. Photo: Natalia Fedosenko/Pool/Reuters
In a nation where democratic space is already under suffocating pressure, Zimbabwe’s new Private Voluntary Organisations (Amendment) Act, 2024 (PVO Act) arrives cloaked in the language of reform yet carries the sharp edges of state control. This is not merely a bureaucratic adjustment but a calculated move in a broader campaign to consolidate power and stifle dissent.
Some justify the law as complying with the Financial Action Task Force’s (FATF) Recommendation 8, which seeks to protect nonprofit organisations from being exploited for terrorist financing. But this justification rings hollow when viewed in context.
The FATF explicitly cautions against overregulation and insists that any countermeasures be risk-based and proportionate. Zimbabwe’s approach fails on both counts. Rather than identifying high-risk entities through a transparent process, the Act casts suspicion on all civil society organisations indiscriminately.
The law requires all organisations engaged in public fundraising or receiving foreign support to register under a new regulatory regime. It grants the registrar of private voluntary organisations and the minister extensive powers to deny, suspend, or cancel registration based on vaguely defined criteria such as “public interest”, “public morality” or the “economic interests of the state”. These catch-all phrases have historically been used to suppress activism and silence whistleblowers. This issue extends beyond mere compliance; it is fundamentally about control.
The new law also authorises government interference in NGO governance, including the power to remove elected boards and appoint trustees who would likely be loyal to the state. The implications are vast. Imagine an organisation offering legal aid to victims of political violence or a charity advocating for the rights of LGBTQ+ people. Under the new rules, such entities could be shuttered overnight based on nothing more than bureaucratic discretion.
We have already glimpsed this future. The recent imprisonment of prominent journalist Blessing Mhlanga for investigative reporting reflects the trajectory Zimbabwe is on. Mhlanga was not promoting instability or inciting violence. He was doing what journalists are meant to do: holding the powerful to account through offering a platform to a political dissident. His arrest signals a government increasingly intolerant of any form of oversight or scrutiny, and the PVO Act places NGOs in the same line of fire.
These measures are not only anti-democratic but also anti-development. Civil society organisations play a crucial role in Zimbabwe, particularly in addressing gaps left by an under-resourced state. They operate health clinics, educate vulnerable populations and advocate for the rights of women, children and minority groups. Curtailing their work under the pretext of anti-terrorism is not only legally dubious but morally indefensible.
International best practice presents a different model. South Africa’s nonprofit law permits voluntary registration and ensures civil society can operate without unwarranted state interference. Although not yet fully implemented, Kenya’s Public Benefit Organisations Act was developed through extensive consultation and includes legal safeguards against political misuse. Even Zambia, once notorious for its restrictive NGO laws, has recently reduced many of its excesses.
The Private Voluntary Organisations (Amendment) Act contradicts Zimbabwe’s constitutional commitments and its obligations under international human rights law. section 58 of Zimbabwe’s Constitution guarantees freedom of association, while section 61 protects freedom of expression. These rights are reiterated in Article 10 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights, to which Zimbabwe is a signatory.
The Southern Africa Litigation Centre, working across the region and with the Global Campaign to Decriminalise Poverty and Status, has witnessed the devastating consequences of overregulation. In countries where civic space is stifled, human rights violations go unchallenged, corruption flourishes, and ordinary people suffer in silence.
The government of Zimbabwe still has a choice. It can repeal or significantly revise the PVO Amendment Act and adopt a regulatory framework that genuinely enhances transparency while respecting constitutional freedoms. Alternatively, it can continue along a path that further isolates it from international partners and undermines its development objectives.
The international community must not remain silent. Donors, multilateral institutions, and regional bodies must demand reforms that align with democratic norms. The FATF must clarify that its standards are being misused when governments adopt laws that criminalise legitimate civic engagement.
Zimbabwe does not need another tool for repression. It requires institutions that foster trust, governance frameworks that enable participation and laws that reflect the values of freedom and accountability. The PVO Amendment Act is not a step forward; it is a leap backwards.
Blessing Mhlanga should not be facing charges for doing his job, NGOs should not operate in fear, and Zimbabweans should not have to choose between their rights and their safety.
The world is watching. And Zimbabwe must decide whether it wants to be a democracy in practice or just in name.
Melusi Simelane is the civic rights cluster lead at the Southern Africa Litigation Centre.