Zimbabwe’s legislative and judicial terrain is expected to face massive turbulence ahead of the Senate’s crucial vote today on the Medical Services Amendment Bill, 2024 [Hereinafter referred to as the Bill], gazetted on July 19, 2024.
Whilst the original Bill contains some welcome developments in the country’s health sector, such as providing health services to elderly persons above the age of seventy years, it also presents perhaps some of the most fundamental risks to the fountain of all rights, the right to life.
Indeed, many Zimbabweans have understandably been asking how the Medical Services Amendment Bill will affect the nation’s abortion laws.
This is understandable because the bill, which is available on the internet, says nothing about abortion or termination of pregnancy.
We understand that there is a proposed amendment to the bill, which was introduced way after public consultation during the committee stage, and it is that proposed addition that seeks to amend the nation’s abortion laws.
Sadly, the proposed amendments were introduced at the committee stage, and such proposals undermine the nation’s social and moral values.
In this article, we unpack the bill, its legal impacts, and how the proposed law will impact the nation’s abortion laws.
Background and analysis
- Mavhunga puts DeMbare into Chibuku quarterfinals
- Bulls to charge into Zimbabwe gold stocks
- Ndiraya concerned as goals dry up
- Letters: How solar power is transforming African farms
Keep Reading
Various laws regulate Zimbabwe’s public health sector, chief amongst them the Medical Services Act [Chapter 15:13].
This Act generally caters to the provision and maintenance of comprehensive health services in Zimbabwe and further regulates the admission of private persons to government hospitals, as well as the regulations governing such access.
In 2024, a bill was gazetted seeking to amend the Medical Services Act.
The reasons for seeking this amendment are spelt out in the preamble of the Bill, and these include the desire to align the Act with the constitution, which was voted for in 2013, some 12 years since the passing of the Medical Services Act.
For better context, it is necessary that we briefly explain the process of law making in Zimbabwe.
Generally, a proposed law or amendment to the law is done by way of a bill of Parliament.
A bill of parliament has to be gazetted by the publication of the bill in the Government Gazette.
The gazette informs members of the public of this said Bill.
Once the bill is gazetted, it is read to the parliament through what is called a first reading.
Preamble to the Bill 2 Chapter 15:13 Members of the public are then allowed to discuss, debate, and have an input in the contents of the bill.
The bill is then taken for a second reading, after which it is presented to a committee.
The stage that follows is a third reading and a vote on whether the bill passes the House of Assembly or not.
From the information that we have reviewed, including the Hansard, the Medical Amendment Bill presented to the members of the public did not speak to abortion or termination of pregnancy.
Thus, the version of the bill online is silent on those issues.
A closer look at the Hansard reveals that the public thoroughly debated the contents of the bill in the form in which it was presented, and the views of the public were recorded. (See the National Assembly Hansard of July 17, 2025).
The information we have reviewed informs us that it was only at the committee stage that, during the sitting of October 23, 2025, a Member of Parliament, Honourable Edwin Mushoriwa, proposed changes to the bill to include amendments to the Termination of Pregnancy Act.
To avoid confusion, we will refer to the proposed changes as “amendments to the bill”.
The proposed changes have the effect of allowing a woman to access abortion on demand until 12 weeks, allowing abortion on grounds of “mental health” or “serious injury” to the woman’s life, the ability for children to access abortion without their parents' consent in the case of emergencies, and a wide range of other changes.
The proposed amendments have sparked justifiable criticism not just in terms of the substantive contents of the proposals but the procedure in which they are being introduced.
There is no doubt that abortion is a deeply important issue in Zimbabwe’s social, legal, and religious fabric and that any changes to abortion laws must be subjected to thorough public debate and consultations.
The proposed amendments, unfortunately, betray the principle of public consultation and threaten the very fundamental values that underpin Zimbabwean society.
Section 3 of the constitution clearly identifies the fundamental values and principles that underpin the Zimbabwean society, and these include “supremacy of the constitution, the nation’s diverse cultural, religious and traditional values, recognition of inherent dignity and worth of every human being”, amongst others.
We take cue from the Supreme Court’s decision and pronouncements in S v Banana 2000 (1) ZLR 607 (s), where the nation’s highest court sat to decide the fate of the nation’s sodomy laws.
MacNally JA correctly observed that Zimbabwe is a conservative society embedded in its culture and traditional values.
There is no evidence to suggest any shift 3 Volume 51, No 66. 4 See the October 23, 2025 National Assembly Hansard, Volume 51 No 93 accessed from https://www.parlzim.gov.zw/download/national-assembly-hansard-23-october-2025-vol-51-no-93/ in that perspective.
In fact, a survey by the World Values Survey in 2020 indicates that about 85% Zimbabweans are opposed to abortion, and therefore passing into law a bill that undermines the majority’s socio-cultural and traditional values without consultation is an egregious violation of the foundations of democratic rule.
The preamble to the constitution reads “We the people of Zimbabwe,” affirming that citizens are at the heart of governance in Zimbabwe. Section 119(1) of the constitution mandates “Parliament to protect this constitution and promote democratic governance in Zimbabwe”.
It is the people of Zimbabwe who must have a say on the nation’s laws, and in the present case, the people of Zimbabwe are faced with amendments on which they had no say.
This is egregious.
Further, we observe that the proposed amendments present a fundamental violation of the constitution and its founding values and principles.
We must highlight that Section 48 of the constitution guarantees the right to life, and Section 86 states that such right is absolute. Section 48 reads that “
- Every person has the right to life. (3) An Act of Parliament must protect the lives of unborn children, and that Act must provide that pregnancy may be terminated only in accordance with that law.”
- There is no doubt that unborn babies are protected under the constitution, and any pregnancy may be terminated only on grounds specified in an Act of Parliament. In Zimbabwe, the Act of Parliament that regulates termination of pregnancy is the Termination of Pregnancy Act. There is no doubt that the word “Act” as opposed to “Acts” refers to only one piece of legislation, one Act of Parliament as opposed to Acts of Parliament or any other law.
Our view is made clearer by the wording, which then says “that Act must provide that pregnancy may be terminated only in accordance with that law.”
The phrase that Act must provide that pregnancy may be terminated only in accordance with “that law,” not “laws.”
It is, therefore, not permissible to amend the Termination of Pregnancy Act through another Bill, the Medical Services Amendment Bill. If there is an intention to amend the Termination of Pregnancy Act, such must be reflected through a Termination of Pregnancy Amendment Bill and subjected to the public for consultation and debate.
The attempt to amend the country’s chief legislation on abortion through another bill of Parliament by introducing amendments at the committee stage is inconsistent with section 48 of the constitution.
We implore the Senate to reject all amendments that speak to the termination of pregnancy in the Medical Services Amendment Bill.
The amendments were never put to the public, and in any event, the amendments are sought through the wrong law and procedure.
As Catholic lawyers, we also take guidance from the social teachings of the Catholic Church.
We, therefore, call on all progressive faith and nonfaith-based organisations to affirm the sanctity of life and demand that our lawmakers pass laws that reaffirm the right to life and not severely undermine it.
Conclusion
The original Medical Service Amendment Bill, 2024, is a noble milestone towards the provision of universal health care.
However, none of that matters if the right that is essential for one to even enjoy the right to health care is severely compromised.
The amendments to the bill seeking to introduce changes to Zimbabwe’s abortion laws must be rejected by all who believe in the sanctity of life and in democratic governance.
These were never put to the public, never debated, and therefore bereft of public consultation.
The amendments are an affront to the right to life, which is guaranteed under the constitution of Zimbabwe.
We affirm that every person, including an unborn baby, has a right to life and that, as a profession of faith, we are called to protect and uphold that right.
