Zimbabwe Lawyers Guild Cries Foul Over Proposed Abortion Law Amendments
The Catholic Lawyers Guild of Zimbabwe has raised significant concerns, labelling proposed amendments to the Medical Services Amendment Bill as a clandestine manoeuvre to liberalise abortion laws. The Guild argues that these changes circumvent public discourse and contravene the nation’s constitution.
In a detailed legal analysis, the Guild highlighted that the contentious amendments were introduced at the committee stage of parliamentary proceedings on October 23, 2025, by opposition legislator Edwin Mushoriwa. The proposed changes aim to alter the existing Termination of Pregnancy Act, a move the Guild finds deeply problematic in both its substance and the method of its introduction.
Key Concerns Raised by the Guild:
- “Backdoor” Liberalisation: The Guild asserts that the amendments represent an attempt to broaden access to abortion without the requisite public consultation and debate.
- Procedural Irregularities: The introduction of significant changes to abortion law within a broader health bill at a late stage of parliamentary review is seen as a violation of democratic principles.
- Constitutional Infringements: The Guild contends that the proposed amendments violate fundamental constitutional provisions, including the right to life and the recognition of the nation’s cultural and traditional values.
The Guild’s critique outlines that the proposed amendments would effectively permit abortion on demand up to 12 weeks of gestation. Furthermore, they would allow for terminations based on “mental health” or conditions posing a “serious injury” to the woman’s life. Crucially, the amendments would also enable minors to access abortion services without parental consent in emergency situations.
“These proposed amendments have sparked justifiable criticism not only because of their substance, but also because of the procedure through which they are being introduced,” the lawyers stated.
Upholding Societal Values and Constitutional Integrity
The Guild underscored the profound significance of abortion within Zimbabwe’s social, legal, and religious fabric. They firmly believe that any alterations to abortion legislation must undergo comprehensive public deliberation and consultation.
“The proposed amendments betray the principle of public consultation and threaten the very fundamental values that underpin Zimbabwean society,” the Guild declared.
Their argument draws heavily on Section 3 of the constitution, which enumerates Zimbabwe’s foundational values. These include the supremacy of the constitution, respect for cultural, religious, and traditional norms, and the inherent dignity of every human being.
Referencing established constitutional jurisprudence, the Guild pointed to the Supreme Court’s judgment in S v Banana (2000). In that case, the court acknowledged Zimbabwe as a conservative society with deep roots in its cultural and traditional values. The Guild maintains that there is no indication of any societal shift away from these deeply held beliefs.
Supporting this assertion, the Guild cited a 2020 World Values Survey, which indicated that approximately 85% of Zimbabweans oppose abortion.
“Passing into law provisions that undermine the majority’s socio-cultural and traditional values without consultation is an egregious violation of the foundations of democratic rule,” the lawyers warned.
The Voice of the People in Governance
The Guild also invoked the preamble of the constitution, which commences with the powerful declaration, “We the people of Zimbabwe.” This, they argue, signifies that citizens must remain central to the governance and law-making processes of the nation.
“Section 119(1) mandates Parliament to protect the constitution and promote democratic governance,” the Guild stated. “In the present case, the people of Zimbabwe are confronted with amendments on which they had no say. This is egregious.”
Constitutional Challenges to the Proposed Amendments
On constitutional grounds, the Guild presented a robust case against the proposed amendments. They argued that the changes violate Section 48 of the constitution, which guarantees the right to life. Furthermore, they contend that Section 86, which affirms the absolute nature of this right, is also contravened.
“Section 48 clearly states that every person has the right to life and that an Act of Parliament must protect the lives of unborn children,” the Guild emphasized.
A critical point raised by the Guild concerns the constitution’s reference to a singular Act of Parliament that governs the termination of pregnancy – the Termination of Pregnancy Act. The lawyers stressed that the constitution refers to “that Act” and “that law,” not multiple legislative instruments.
“It is therefore impermissible to amend the Termination of Pregnancy Act through another Bill,” they asserted.
The Guild concluded that any intention to amend abortion laws must be pursued through a dedicated Termination of Pregnancy Amendment Bill, which would then be subjected to the necessary public consultation and debate. They warned that the current approach of introducing abortion-related provisions within a general health statute at the committee stage is both procedurally flawed and constitutionally inconsistent.
