The Constitutional Court of Zimbabwe has dismissed an application seeking to invalidate the Private Voluntary Organisations Act 2025 and hold the President of Zimbabwe accountable for allegedly assenting to a law passed without proper public participation, ruling that no constitutional breach was established.
In a judgment handed down on 16 February 2026, Justice Rita Makarau sitting with Justices Elizabeth Gwaunza, Paddington Garwe, Anne Gowora, Ben Hlatshwayo, Bharat Patel and Susan Mavangira, found that the applicants, Passionate Fuza and Jonah Wakurawarehwa, had not shown that the Parliament of Zimbabwe failed to fulfil its duties under Section 141 of the Constitution during the passage of the Act.
President Emmerson Mnangagwa had already been removed from the case during the hearing after the applicants conceded they had made no allegations against him capable of grounding a constitutional claim.
"It was conceded that no allegation had been made and proved against the second respondent that he had failed to fulfil a constitutional obligation," the Court stated, adding that his joinder "was therefore incompetent."
Follow us on WhatsApp | LinkedIn for the latest headlines
The applicants had argued that public hearings in Harare and Masvingo had been disrupted, preventing meaningful contributions on the Bill and claimed this invalidated both the legislative process and the President's subsequent assent to the law.
But the court found the evidence insufficient and the legal basis misconceived.
"The applicants have not established that the respondent failed 'to facilitate public involvement' in the legislative process."
"The application cannot be granted and must be dismissed."
The apex court also said Section 141 confers a collective right on the public, not an individual guarantee that every citizen must personally be heard at every meeting.
The full bench also noted that the applicants focused on their own alleged exclusion instead of demonstrating that the public at large was denied participation.
"They needed to put the public at the centre stage. They did not," the judgment stated.
Parliament had convened ten nationwide hearings and offered other avenues for public submissions. The Court held that even if two meetings were disrupted, the applicants had not shown that this outweighed the broader participation opportunities available.
"The applicants misconstrued the obligation imposed on it by the Constitution," the court said.
Sign up for free AllAfrica Newsletters
Get the latest in African news delivered straight to your inbox
On the argument that the matter was moot because the President had already signed the Bill into law, the Court found otherwise: "The mere existence of the law keeps the controversy between the parties live because the validity of the Act depends entirely on the integrity of the legislative process."
The applicants were represented by their lawyer, Tonderayi Bhatasara of the Zimbabwe Lawyers for Human Rights.
The application was dismissed with no order as to costs.
