Activist Challenges PVO Amendment Act in Constitutional Court

A Zimbabwean activist, Youngerson Matete, has filed a direct application with the Constitutional Court seeking to overturn the recently enacted Private Voluntary Organisations (PVO) Amendment Act, No. 1 of 2025.

The application was filed on 24 December 2025 and cites Parliament, the Minister of Public Service, Labour and Social Welfare Edgar Moyo, President Emmerson Mnangagwa and Attorney General Virginia Mabiza as respondents.

Matete argues that the law was passed through a “legally irregular process” that violated the Constitution and Parliament’s Standing Orders. In his founding affidavit, Matete wrote:

“In allowing the Private Voluntary Organisations Amendment Bill to sail through its processes in light of the violations referred to in paragraph 1 above, Parliament failed to fulfil its obligations in terms of section 119 (1) and (2) of the Constitution of Zimbabwe.

“In assenting to the Private Voluntary Organisations Amendment Bill, which had not been passed in accordance with the constitution as read with the Standing orders, the President failed to fulfil his constitutional obligations in terms of section 90 (1) of the Constitution, obliging him to ensure the constitution and all other laws are faithfully observed.”

Matete said the enactment of the PVO Act, which came into effect on 1 April 2025, fails to meet this basic constitutional requirement. He argued:

“Being a concerned citizen, I thus have a right to see to it that the laws that bind me and other citizens are promulgated through processes not marred with irregularity.

“Consequently I am entitled as such to being governed by laws that are properly promulgated in terms of the applicable procedural legislative processes and to challenge laws that fall below that standard. As such I have a direct and substantial interest in the matter.”

At the heart of Matete’s challenge is the claim that the PVO Bill debated and passed by the National Assembly was fundamentally different from the version later sent to the Senate, effectively bypassing key stages of scrutiny and breaching mandatory procedures. Said Matete:

“… it is apparent that the National Assembly and the Senate in the first and second reading debated and passed two fundamentally different Bills.”

The application is based on detailed procedural irregularities. It states that when the Bill was sent to the Senate in October 2024, key provisions — including the Long Title and Clauses 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 10, 14 and 25 — were missing.

These omissions were only addressed months later, in February 2025, when the Minister of Justice, Ziyambi Ziyambi, initiated an unusual “re-committal” process during the Senate’s third reading. Argues Matete:

“There is no such process provided for in the constitution or Standing Orders whereby a Bill is re-committed to a House of Parliament,” argues the applicant. Such procedure is alien and has no basis at law.”

The respondents have 21 days from the date of service of the application to file their notices of opposition, setting out the grounds on which they intend to contest the matter.

Failure to file a response within this period may result in the court proceeding to consider the application without their input.

More: CITE