The
PVO
Amendment
Act
itself
is
highly
contentious,
introducing
sweeping
new
regulations,
registration
requirements,
civil
and
criminal
penalties
for
non-governmental
and
charitable
organisations,
citing
compliance
with
international
Financial
Action
Task
Force
recommendations.
The
application,
filed
on
24
December
2025
and
citing
Parliament,
the
Minister
of
Public
Service,
Labour
and
Social
Welfare
(Edgar
Moyo),
the
President
(Emmerson
Mnangagwa)
and
the
Attorney
General
(Virginia
Mabiza),
as
respondents,
alleges
that
the
law
was
birthed
through
a
“legally
irregular
process”
that
“flouted
the
Constitution
and
the
Standing
Orders.”
“The
legislative
process
that
culminated
in
the
promulgation
of
the
Private
Voluntary
Organisations
Amendment
Act
No.
1
of
2025
violated
Sections
131
(2)
and
(4),
of
the
Constitution
and
Section
133
(1)
and
138
(1)
of
the
Parliament
of
Zimbabwe
(The
Senate)
Standing
Rules
and
Orders
and
in
that
regard,
Parliament
failed
to
fulfil
its
constitutional
obligations,”
Matete
said
in
his
founding
affidavit.
“In
allowing
the
Private
Voluntary
Organisations
Amendment
Bill
to
sail
through
its
processes
in
light
of
the
violations
referred
to
in
paragraph
1
above,
Parliament
failed
to
fulfill
its
obligations
in
terms
of
section
119
(1)
and
(2)
of
the
Constitution
of
Zimbabwe
“In
assenting
to
the
Private
Voluntary
Organisations
Amendment
Bill,
which
had
not
been
passed
in
accordance
with
the
constitution
as
read
with
the
Standing
orders,
the
President
failed
to
fulfill
his
constitutional
obligations
in
terms
of
section
90
(1)
of
the
Constitution
obliging
him
to
ensure
the
constitution
and
all
other
laws
are
faithfully
observed.”
Matete
said
the
enactment
of
the
PVO
act,
which
came
into
effect
on
1
April
2025
falls
foul
of
that
basic
constitutional
requirement.
“Being
a
concerned
citizen,
I
thus
have
a
right
to
see
to
it
that
the
laws
that
bind
me
and
other
citizens
are
promulgated
through
processes
not
marred
with
irregularity,”
he
said
in
his
founding
affidavit.
“Consequently
I
am
entitled
as
such
to
being
governed
by
laws
that
are
properly
promulgated
in
terms
of
the
applicable
procedural
legislative
processes
and
to
challenge
laws
that
fall
below
that
standard.
As
such
I
have
a
direct
and
substantial
interest
in
the
matter.”
At
the
core
of
Matete’s
challenge
is
that
the
PVO
Bill
debated
and
passed
by
the
National
Assembly
was
fundamentally
different
from
the
one
later
sent
to
the
Senate,
bypassing
crucial
stages
of
scrutiny
and
violating
mandatory
procedures.
“It
is
inexplicable
that
a
Bill
approved
during
debate
by
the
National
Assembly
would
reach
the
Senate,
in
the
same
building,
with
missing
clauses,”
states
Matete
in
his
founding
affidavit.
“Clearly,
it
is
apparent
that
the
National
Assembly
and
the
Senate
in
the
first
and
second
reading
debated
and
passed
two
fundamentally
different
Bills.”
The
application
hinges
on
detailed
procedural
allegations.
It
notes
that
when
the
Bill
was
transmitted
to
the
Senate
in
October
2024,
key
sections,
including
the
Long
Title
and
Clauses
2,
3,
4,
5,
7,
8,
9,
10,
14
and
25
were
absent.
These
omissions
were
only
addressed
months
later
in
February
2025,
when
the
Minister
of
Justice,
Ziyambi
Ziyambi,
initiated
an
unusual
“re-committal”
process
during
the
Senate’s
third
reading.
“There
is
no
such
process
provided
for
in
the
constitution
or
Standing
Orders
whereby
a
Bill
is
re-committed
to
a
House
of
Parliament,”
argues
the
applicant.
“Such
procedure
is
alien
and
has
no
basis
at
law.”
The
filing
includes
damning
evidence
from
the
parliamentary
record
(Annexure
A),
a
Hansard
extract
where
Minister
Ziyambi
concedes
the
omissions,
stating:
“We
have
clauses
that
were
omitted
when
the
Bill
was
transmitted
from
the
National
Assembly
to
the
Senate.”
The
applicant
argues
this
fatally
flawed
process
means
the
Bill
that
eventually
received
Presidential
assent
never
properly
underwent
the
constitutionally
required
first
and
second
readings
in
the
Senate.
“The
Bill
that
in
fact
passed
the
third
reading
in
Senate
and
was
presented
to
the
President
for
assent
never
went
through
the
first
and
second
readings.
It
only
went
through
the
third
reading,”
the
affidavit
reads.
Furthermore,
the
application
accuses
Parliament
of
failing
its
constitutional
duty
to
“protect
the
Constitution
and
promote
democratic
governance,”
and
charges
that
the
President
violated
his
oath
of
office
by
assenting
to
a
Bill
not
passed
in
accordance
with
the
law.
“Nothing
legally
valid
can
be
born
out
of
a
legally
irregular
process.
It
is
a
nullity
and
cannot
stand,”
the
application
concludes,
seeking
an
order
for
the
entire
act
to
be
“struck
down
and
declared
invalid.”
The
respondents
have
21
days
to
file
notices
of
opposition.