Richard Muponde — The relationship between Civil Society Organisations (CSOs) in Zimbabwe and the United States embassy in Harare and its neo-imperialist allies has come under scrutiny, particularly in light of the recent enactment of the Private Voluntary Organisations (PVO) Amendment Act.
President Mnangagwa assented to the Bill to become law on April 11.
This legislation has been described by the West and local CSOs as draconian and a direct threat to civil liberties and democratic processes in the country.
Keep up with the latest headlines on WhatsApp | LinkedIn
This situation has been labelled a "marriage of convenience" in the broader context of the West's alleged regime change agenda in Zimbabwe and Africa.
CSOs have been a significant feature of Zimbabwe's political landscape, particularly since the early 2000s. Following the Fast Track Land Reform Programme initiated by the late former President Robert Mugabe, CSOs emerged as key players in advocating for regime change and were used as conduits for opposition funding.
They have often been proponents of the West's agenda, policies, and practices, including homosexuality, leading to their characterisation by citizens as agents of Western influence and regime change.
The Government has accused CSOs of receiving funding from foreign entities, particularly from the US and its allies, to destabilise the country, hence the need to put their activities under check through the PVO Amendment Act.
To show that the PVO Amendment Act ruffled the feathers of neo-imperialists, it has been met with significant resistance from both local and international actors. Previously, the US Embassy in Zimbabwe publicly threatened to withdraw from Zimbabwe's Arrears Clearance and Debt Resolution Process if the Act was enacted.
Critics of the PVO Amendment Act argue that it grants excessive power to Government authorities to monitor and control the funding and activities of private voluntary organisations. This could lead to the suppression of dissenting voices and a further shrinking of the civic space in Zimbabwe.
In their press statement released on April 16, 2025, CSOs articulated their concerns about the law, describing it as a "draconian law" that threatens to criminalise legitimate activities and undermine the constitutional democracy of Zimbabwe.
The alignment of the US Embassy's position on the PVO Amendment Act with that of Zimbabwean CSOs has been interpreted by analysts and citizens as indicative of a broader collusion aimed at destabilising the nation.
The Government has framed this relationship as a "marriage of convenience," suggesting that CSOs are being used as proxies for Western interests in their quest for regime change.
The US has historically been a significant funder of opposition movements in Zimbabwe, often leveraging CSOs to promote democratic values and human rights. This relationship has fostered scepticism within the ruling party and Government institutions, which view the funding and support as direct interference in Zimbabwe's sovereign affairs.
The Government's narrative is that the West seeks to manipulate local organisations to achieve political ends that align with their broader geopolitical strategies.
So far, the sentiments expressed by Zimbabwean CSOs in response to the PVO Amendment Act closely mirror those of the U.S. Embassy, suggesting a coordinated effort to challenge the legislation. This synchronisation of voices raises questions about the independence of local civil society and the extent to which they may be influenced or controlled by foreign interests.
From the perspective of the Government, the alignment between CSOs and the US is not merely a matter of shared values but rather a strategic manoeuvre that threatens national stability. The Government has consistently articulated its position that foreign funding for local organisations often comes with strings attached, leading to a compromise of Zimbabwean sovereignty.
The Government actions against CSOs are viewed as necessary for protecting national interests and maintaining order. The enactment of the PVO Amendment Act is, therefore, a legitimate response to external threats to the country.
It's crucial to understand that the PVO Amendment Act wasn't enacted arbitrarily. It has undergone scrutiny to ensure that its provisions do not illogically undermine stakeholders.
Its development and implementation were driven by specific, stated objectives, primarily the need to align Zimbabwe's regulations with international standards set by bodies like the Financial Action Task Force (FATF) to combat money laundering and terrorism financing risks perceived within the non-profit sector.
The law takes significant measures aimed at curbing illicit financial flows, including the financing of terrorism. The primary motivation of the Act was to align Zimbabwe's legal framework with international standards, particularly the recommendations of the Financial Action Task Force (FATF). The task force identifies non-profit organisations or NGOs as potentially vulnerable to misuse for terrorist financing (TF) and money laundering (ML). Recommendation 8 of the FATF standards specifically calls for countries to assess the risks associated with the NGO sector and implement focused, risk-based measures to prevent abuse, without unduly disrupting legitimate activities.
Sign up for free AllAfrica Newsletters
Get the latest in African news delivered straight to your inbox
Zimbabwe had been under increased FATF monitoring, and the PVO Act amendments were framed as a necessary step to address identified deficiencies and enhance compliance.
The Act introduces several mechanisms intended to prevent the PVO sector from being exploited for terrorism financing. This increased oversight is central to the anti-terrorism financing objective. The law mandates a risk-based approach, requiring authorities, including the Financial Intelligence Unit (FIU), to conduct periodic risk assessments to identify PVOs or specific sectors within the PVO community that might be at higher risk of terrorist financing or/money laundering.
The Government also gains the power to designate certain organisations or types of organisations as "high-risk," potentially subjecting them to more stringent scrutiny, reporting requirements, and oversight.
