High Court Strikes Down Zimbabwe Sanctions Law

Judgement Declares Provision Unconstitutional

In a recent ruling, the High Court has invalidated a legal provision that aimed to penalize those who advocate for sanctions against Zimbabwe. This decision potentially alters the landscape for political discourse and activism within the country.

The Court’s Decision

The court, under the guidance of Judge Justice Rodgers Manyangadze, deemed section 22A(3) of the Criminal Law Code unconstitutional. This section sought to criminalize individuals who called for sanctions or trade boycotts aimed at Zimbabwe.

This is the text of the tweet.

The judge found the provision to be “too wide, vague, and broad” to be enforceable. The challenge was initiated by journalists Valentine Pairs and the Legal Watchdog Vortas, Reprenderyer Tewi Team.

“The court did not issue any order regarding legal costs.”

—Justice Rodgers Manyangadze, High Court Judge

Zimbabwe’s economy has faced significant challenges, with inflation peaking at 837.5% in July 2020 (IMF Data), highlighting the stakes involved in this legal battle.

Impact and Implications

The ruling is expected to have a substantial impact on freedom of expression. The specifics of how this ruling will be applied are being closely watched by legal experts and human rights groups.

This decision could provide an opening for broader discussions and debates regarding sanctions and the government’s response. The long-term implications will depend on how this ruling influences Zimbabwe’s political environment and international relations.