In
a
judgment
delivered
on
Wednesday,
the
court
struck
down
Section
22A
(3)
of
the
Criminal
Law
(Codification
and
Reform)
Amendment
Act
No.
10
of
2023,
declaring
it
vague,
overly
broad,
and
in
violation
of
fundamental
rights
guaranteed
under
the
country’s
Constitution.
The
provision
had
criminalised
participation
in
meetings
discussing
sanctions
against
Zimbabwe
and
allowed
penalties
such
as
citizenship
revocation,
restriction
of
voting
rights,
and
bans
from
holding
public
office.
The
court,
however,
upheld
Section
22A
(2)
of
the
Act,
which
criminalises
participation
in
foreign-led
efforts
to
overthrow
the
government,
saying
the
provision
was
sufficiently
clear
and
necessary
for
protecting
national
sovereignty.
“The
applicants
have
substantiated
constitutional
invalidity
in
respect
of
Section
22A
(3),”
said
Justice
Rodgers
Manyangadze
in
the
ruling.
“The
provision
lacks
precision
and
creates
uncertainty,
thereby
infringing
on
rights
to
freedom
of
expression,
association,
and
political
participation
as
enshrined
in
Sections
58,
61,
and
67
of
the
Constitution.”
The
case
was
brought
by
the
Media
Alliance
of
Zimbabwe
and
rights
activist
and
journalist
Zenzele
Ndebele,
who
argued
that
the
broadly-worded
law
threatened
freedom
of
speech
and
could
be
used
to
target
dissenters
and
journalists.
They
claimed
the
legislation
risked
punishing
individuals
simply
for
attending
international
meetings
or
engaging
in
legitimate
political
discourse.
Lawyers
for
the
government
defended
the
law
as
a
necessary
safeguard
for
state
security,
but
the
court
found
parts
of
the
statute
unjustifiably
limited
constitutional
rights.
“Criminal
offences
must
be
defined
with
clarity
to
avoid
ensnaring
innocent
conduct,”
the
court
ruled,
adding
that
severe
penalties
such
as
loss
of
citizenship
or
voting
rights
could
not
stand
without
clear
legal
justification.
The
court
dismissed
the
applicants’
challenge
to
Section
22A
(2),
which
penalises
citizens
who
conspire
with
foreign
powers
to
overthrow
the
government,
ruling
this
provision
was
precise
and
fell
within
the
state’s
right
to
defend
its
sovereignty.
There
was
no
order
as
to
costs.