Common Law with Mike Murenzvi
“Abortion is either OK or it’s not.” – Peggy Noonan.
On 23 October 2025, the National Assembly voted for an amendment to the Termination of Pregnancy Act (TOPA). This amendment, which pushes for expanded access to abortion services, was indirect because it came as an extension of the Medical Services Amendment Bill.
Column | Zimbabwe’s Abortion Law Debate: Between Public Health, Rights and Religion Part 3
Zimbabwe’s Abortion Law Debate: Between Public Health, Rights and Religion – Part 2
Zimbabwe’s Abortion Law Debate: Between Public Health, Rights and Religion
COLUMN | After landmark ruling, a major update is coming to Zimbabwe’s Abortion Law]
The amendment
During debate on the Medical Services Amendment Bill, Dzivarasekwa MP, Edwin Mushoriwa (CCC), proposed significant amendments to the TOPA. These amendments affected elements of definitions, circumstances under which pregnancy may be terminated, conditions under which pregnancy may be terminated, where a pregnancy may be terminated, appeal against refusal of a superintendent to give permission, emergencies, and information forwarded to the Ministry Secretary.
I will analyse each of these amendments in turn.
Definitions
Some of the key definitions that were amended are:
- “Unlawful intercourse”, which previously excluded marital rape, now means sexual intercourse that constitutes a criminal offence.
- “Child”, a word previously unused and undefined, now means a person under the age of eighteen years.
- “Woman”, a word previously unused and undefined, now means a female person of any age.
- Other definitions added and amended include those of the gestation period, what constitutes a medical practitioner and a midwife.
These amendments fall short of fully addressing the November 2024 High Court judgment in WLSA and Talent Forget v Minister of Health and Child Care and Others. This judgment struck down the entire definitions section 2(1) of the current TOPA because the definition of unlawful intercourse was too narrow. All omitted definitions need to be added to this amendment.
Insofar as addressing the defects of the unlawful intercourse definition, the proposed amendment is somewhat incomplete in that it does not reference the Criminal Law (Codification and Reform) Act [Chapter 9:23] and the sections or parts of the Act where sexual offences are defined. The definition of woman is too far-reaching in that it identifies every female person regardless of age, and this later goes on to indiscriminately imbue decision-making capacity to minors in the absence of their parents or guardians.
Circumstances in which pregnancy may be terminated
This section was overhauled with the intention of providing universal abortion services to children within the first twelve weeks of the pregnancy. Up to the first twenty weeks, termination of pregnancy is available to all women only on grounds of preservation of life or physical or mental health and unlawful intercourse.
The blanket access to termination services to minors is worded in such a way that the parents or guardian of the pregnant girl doesn’t have to be consulted in the matter. The specific wording states:
“(1) A child who is pregnant shall be entitled to have her pregnancy terminated in terms of this Act-…during the first twelve weeks of her gestation period, upon her request for or consent to termination…”
In November 2022, a nine-year-old girl gave birth by caesarean section in Tsholotsho. In January 2023, an eight-year-old girl gave birth by caesarean section in Bindura. In both these cases, the girls were victims of unlawful intercourse. After twenty weeks, a pregnancy may only be terminated if two medical practitioners agree that continuation would endanger the woman’s life, or the foetus would suffer serious malformations or injury.
The onerous conditions and bureaucracy surrounding the approval of a legal abortion have been removed. Previously, termination of a pregnancy arising from unlawful intercourse required the approval and certification of a magistrate after a hearing to determine that there was indeed unlawful intercourse. This process would often take so long that approval was generally granted after the medically safe period of conducting such a procedure. There have been cases where the magistrate approved termination after the pregnancy had reached full term and the child had been delivered. Effectively, a woman only needs to allege that the pregnancy was a result of unlawful intercourse to receive termination services.
Further related amendments include a new replacement section titled; “Where and by whom a pregnancy may be terminated”. This section simply states that a termination of pregnancy may only be conducted by a medical practitioner in a designated institution (state hospital).
The requirement for permission of the designated institution’s superintendent for all terminations has been removed. It is up to the medical practitioner to make any decisions and consultations as they may deem necessary.
Information to be given to woman before pregnancy is terminated
The new amendments add a clause instructing the medical practitioner to ensure that the woman has been informed of her rights under the Act. In the case of a mentally disabled or unconscious woman, these rights are explained to her guardian, spouse, or curator, as they would have been the ones to request the termination of the pregnancy.
Consent to termination of pregnancy
As part of the new amendments, explicit informed consent to the procedure is now a direct requirement. This is in line with the Public Health Act. As stated above, the most significant element of consent within the amendment says: “7(2) Notwithstanding any other law but subject to this section, no consent other than that of the pregnant woman, even if she is a child, shall be required for the termination of her pregnancy.”
A medical practitioner shall advise a pregnant child to consult her parents, but that consultation is not a requirement for conducting the procedure. Looking back at the two cases cited earlier, a child of that age is generally not deemed to have the mental capacity to consent to sexual activity or many other contractual activities and yet she is now given the capacity to initiate and consent to termination of pregnancy with or without the assistance or consultation of a parent or guardian.
This provision overrides the Public Health Act, which states that “informed consent means consent for provision of a specified health service given by a person with legal capacity to do so and has been informed…” Legal capacity in a person under the age of eighteen years is limited. In many cases, this is further limited when the child is below the age of sixteen years.
Emergencies
In urgent cases where a medical practitioner is reasonably satisfied that continuation of pregnancy poses a clear and imminent threat to the life of the woman or her physical or mental health, the pregnancy may be terminated regardless of all other provisions of the law. The medical practitioner must report these cases to the Secretary for Health and Child Care in the prescribed form within 48 hours of the procedure or risk being prosecuted and liable to a fine up to level five (currently US$100) or up to six months in prison, or both.
Records and information
Every medical practitioner who performs a termination of pregnancy shall record the details of each procedure in the prescribed form and submit the report to the superintendent of the designated institution. Within one month of receipt of the report, the superintendent shall send a combined report for the designated institution to the Secretary without the names and addresses of the women.
The Secretary has the right to request further information about a case from the Superintendent or medical practitioner or midwife, and this should be provided without delay, or they risk prosecution and a fine up to level five, or up to six months in prison, or both.
Addressing High Court judgments
There are two High Court Judgments, one year apart, declaring sections of the TOPA as unconstitutional. The first, in November 2024, declared the entire definitions section 2(1) as unconstitutional in a case that sought to expand the meaning of “unlawful intercourse”. The second, in November 2025, by Justice Sylvia Chirawu-Mugomba, declared that adverse effects on mental health are a valid reason for termination of pregnancy.
While neither of the two judgments has been confirmed by the Constitutional Court yet, this amendment tries to address the issues raised in them. This proactive approach of tackling judgments before Constitutional Court confirmation, albeit late, should be commended as it shows Parliament’s commitment to legislative reform and constitutional adherence.
Bishops’ backlash
The Catholic Lawyers Guild of Zimbabwe, the Zimbabwe Heads of Christian Denominations (ZHOCD), and Catholic priest, Fr Johnston Mlambo, have written letters and editorials imploring the Senate not to allow this amendment to stand.
Aside from the obvious religious and moral pro-life arguments, the main bone of contention is how the amendment was introduced and passed “through the backdoor”. The amendment was never part of the original Medical Services Amendment Bill; hence, it was never subject to public comment or contribution, coupled with the effect of non-requirement of parental consent where the pregnant person is a child.
Fr. Mlambo argues that “it fundamentally rewrites Zimbabwe’s moral, cultural, and legal foundations in ways that carry profound consequences for women, children, families, and society.” He goes on further to say, “the bill reinforces this worldview by treating abortion as a simple, consequence-free solution to an inconvenient pregnancy, giving a minor life-and-death authority without the guidance or wisdom of the adults responsible for her wellbeing.” He closes off his argument by suggesting that the Bill effectively gives sexual abusers an easy way to get rid of evidence.
“It hands to a frightened schoolgirl a decision with profound emotional, medical, and spiritual consequences, at an age where impulsive decisions and vulnerability are at their highest. This secrecy also becomes a powerful shield for predators.
By removing evidence requirements for rape, incest, and unlawful intercourse, the bill unintentionally protects abusers more than victims. A man who impregnates a girl — whether a teacher, neighbour, relative, or older boyfriend — can simply escort her quietly to a clinic. The abortion erases all evidence: no pregnancy, no medical report, no police case, no parental awareness. The cycle of abuse continues unchecked. In a society where many victims already face threats, coercion, and pressure to keep silent, this bill makes concealment even easier.”
Similarly, the Catholic Lawyers Guild advanced the argument of a lack of public consultation. They said, “These were never put to the public, never debated and are, therefore, bereft of public consultation. The amendments are an affront to the right to life, which is guaranteed under the Constitution of Zimbabwe. 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.”
In an additional angle to the arguments, the ZHOCD argues that the broad interpretation of mental health could enable late-term and even sex-selective abortions. They argued that emotional or psychological distress may justify the procedure at advanced stages of pregnancy. “The proposed amendments to the Medical Services Bill would dismantle long-standing protections and introduce abortion on request into our nation. For the sake of our moral integrity and social stability, these changes must be rejected.”
All three parties have urged Christians and other pro-life members of society to engage their senators to reject this amendment in totality.
Health sector information
A study titled “Abortion in Zimbabwe: A national study of the incidence of induced abortion, unintended pregnancy and post-abortion care in 2016” revealed that in 2016, 40% of all pregnancies were unintended, and of those, approximately 25% ended in abortion. This means that for every 100 live births, there are 13 abortions. Put differently, it is estimated that there were over 65,000 abortions in Zimbabwe in 2016.
Abortions account for up to 9% of maternal-related deaths in Zimbabwe, and our post-abortion care requires more investment and training. This was the first-ever study to estimate the national incidence of induced abortion in Zimbabwe. It must be noted that these statistics are based solely on reported cases of post-abortion care at health institutions, and due to the current legal framework governing termination of pregnancy, there are high numbers of unreported cases.
The study concluded that Zimbabwe has one of the lowest abortion rates in sub-Saharan Africa, likely due to high rates of contraceptive use. There are gaps in the health care system affecting the provision of quality post-abortion care (PAC), potentially due to the prolonged economic crisis. These findings can inform and improve policies and programs addressing unsafe abortion and PAC in Zimbabwe.
In 2021, Dr Ruth Labode, the then-chairperson of Parliament’s Portfolio Committee on Health and Child Care, and a campaigner for safe, legal abortions, reported a rise in illegal abortions, with numbers jumping from 60,000 to 80,000 annually.
Work for the Senate
When the Senate reconvenes in February, it faces the task of going through the Bill and specifically this amendment to the TOPA. Given the backdrop of a highly disputed past motion to expand abortion access, the Senate shall prove to be the ultimate battleground on this issue. Between March and June 2025, the Senate debated a motion to expand abortion access. This elicited very strong religious and moral responses from Senators to the extent that the motion had to be toned down to pass. The motion passed was to call on the Minister of Health and Child Care to bring in a TOPA amendment bill or overhaul the entire Act and replace it with something current and aligned to the Constitution.
It remains to be seen how this amendment will go over and what, if any, amendments the Senate may propose to this section.
_______________________
Mike Murenzvi writes in his personal capacity, and his views are not associated with any organisation he is, or may be, affiliated with.
