THE ZIMBABWE Lawyers for Human Rights (ZLHR) has approached the High Court, challenging the constitutionality of some provisions of the Private Voluntary Organisations (PVO) Amendment Act.
The legal challenge seeks to declare the provisions null and void, arguing that they excessively restrict the operations of PVOs and criminalise legitimate human rights and development owing to undue regulatory burdens.
The Public Service minister and Attorney-General are cited as respondents in the matter.
The lawyers argue that the PVO Amendment Act, which was enacted and published in the Government Gazette on April 11, 2025, constitutes a fundamental encroachment on the rights of members of the ZLHR.
In her founding affidavit, the ZLHR executive director, Roseline Hanzi, argued that some of the provisions contain errors and omissions.
The Amendment Act is cited as the Private Voluntary Organisations Amendment Act 1 of 2025.
However, in various sections of the Act, it is referred to as the Private Voluntary Organisations Amendment Act, 2024.
“As if this was not enough, section 4(a) is incomplete. It reads as follows, 'The functions of the board shall be a) to consider and approve or not approve every application for registration provisionally approved by the registrar in terms of section ... and every provisional cancellation or amendment of a certificate of registration effected by the registrar in terms of section...
- Veld fire management strategies for 2022
- Magistrate in court for abuse of power
- Veld fire management strategies for 2022
- New Marriages Act: What you need to know
Keep Reading
“This level of inattention is astounding. This was a rushed amendment. From the lower House, to the upper House and from the second respondent's office to ultimate authority, these glaring errors and omissions went unnoticed,” Hanzi averred.
She also argued that some of the provisions were contradictory.
“Section 4 empowers the board to, among other things, consider and approve or not approve every application for registration provisionally approved by the registrar. However, before the ink dries, section 5 of the PVO Amendment Act creates the office of the registrar, who is empowered in section 9(5) of the PVO Amendment Act, to grant or refuse an application for registration.
“The two provisions contradict each other. In one breath, the board is the ultimate authority when it comes to the approval or disapproval of every application for registration provisionally approved by the registrar; on the other hand, the registrar is the ultimate authority. The provisions are, therefore, vague and meaningless. They must be struck down,” she said.
