Common Law with Mike Murenzvi
“The evidence is pretty strong: if you have access to family planning and birth control, the abortion rate is going to go down.” – Bob Casey Jr.
In November 2024, the High Court ruled that the definition of unlawful intercourse in the Termination of Pregnancy Act (TOPA) was too narrow and unconstitutional. The Senate is now debating a motion to make necessary changes to the law.
[See also: COLUMN | After landmark ruling, a major update is coming to Zimbabwe’s Abortion Law]
The motion
On 5 March 2025, ZANU-PF women senators, Bertha Chinyanga and Annah Rungani, moved a motion calling on the Minister of Health and Child Care to “enact legislation that provides for appropriate safeguard and allows or legalises the termination of pregnancy during the first trimester of pregnancy in cases of unwanted pregnancy; and ensure that access to abortion services is available nationwide.” She made it very clear from the onset of her motion speech that “this debate is not about promoting abortion. It is about saving lives, safeguarding public health and upholding the constitutional and human rights of women.”
In her movement speech, Sen. Chinyanga highlighted the TOPA allows abortion under three very narrow circumstances – when the mother’s life is at risk, when the foetus has severe abnormalities, and when the pregnancy was a result of unlawful intercourse (specifically, rape or incest). Zimbabwe’s restrictive laws have forced women and girls to undergo unsafe and clandestine abortions linked to 16% of all maternal deaths in the country.
Furthermore, Sen. Chinyanga pointed out that our abortion laws fall foul of our Constitution, specifically section 52 which guarantees the right to bodily and psychological integrity, including reproductive rights, and section 76 which guarantees the rights to health care, including reproductive health care services. Our law also violates the Convention on Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW), which calls for the removal of restrictive abortion laws. Zimbabwe is a signatory to this important United Nations (UN) convention.
Sen. Chinyanga cited examples of South Africa and Rwanda, where they enacted laws giving wider and less restrictive access to abortion services and this greatly reduced maternal deaths in those countries.
In closing summary, Sen. Chinyanga called on the Senate to:
- Expand access to safe abortions
- Amend the TOPA to allow abortion where the physical or mental health of the women is at risk, in cases of rape, within marriage and other circumstances that recognise the realities of women’s lives.
- Protect adolescent girls by ensuring that they have access to comprehensive family planning services, education of reproductive health and confidential healthcare services without unnecessary legal barriers.
- Align international standards by bringing our laws in line with CEDAW and other international human rights frameworks to protect women’s and dignity.
- Strengthen public health infrastructure by investing in reproductive health clinics, training for medical professionals and public awareness campaign to provide women with accurate information and safe options.
- Engage stakeholders by conducting national consultations with legal, medical, and human rights experts, as well as community leaders and women’s rights organisations to ensure a balanced and inclusive legal framework.
“This debate is not about ideology, it is about evidence, justice and human dignity. We cannot allow outdated laws to continue endangering the lives of women and girls. We must act with courage and conviction to reform our legal framework and bring Zimbabwe into alignment with best practices that prioritise human rights and public health. Let us arise above decisive debates and work towards a policy that ensures that no women or girls in Zimbabwe are forced to risk a life due to legal constraints.”
Subsequent debate
Debate Day 1 – 5 March 2025
As other senators took to the floor to debate the motion, there were clear signs of division based on religious, moral, and ideological grounds.
Sen. Tendai Sibanda (Female) (CCC) supported the motion, especially on expanding the definition of unlawful intercourse to include marital rape. Controversially, she stated that in South Africa, most criminals were born from unwanted pregnancies. She further touched on the current bureaucracy surrounding lawful abortions and highlighted a case where a woman was raped and by the time a magistrate authorised the abortion, she was in her third trimester.
Sen. Maybe Mbohwa (F) (ZANU-PF), in support of the motion, also highlighted the undue bureaucracy on abortions in rape cases. She advocated for swift rulings allowing for abortions in rape and other unlawful intercourse cases, especially those with child victims. This should be in the form of a one-stop shop where the judiciary, police, and healthcare professionals are all under one roof to handle these time-sensitive matters. She, however, limited her support to the current framing of the law.
Sen. Miriam Katumba (F) (CCC), in support of the motion also highlighted the effects of incest and rape and their contribution to the rise in vagrancy.
Sen. Sam Chapfudza (Male) (CCC) highlighted the potential abuse of the process if abortion services are made too easily available. He called on women and girls to use available prophylaxis and methods to avoid unplanned pregnancies and not resort to abortion in the case of unwanted pregnancies and those who abuse the process must be arrested.
Sen. Irene Zindi (F) (ZANU-PF), in support of the motion, indicated that this review of abortion law was long overdue. She cited a 2024 paper by David Matsengarwodzi that highlighted that the law was enacted in 1977 and should have been long reviewed to be reflective of the current environment. She went further by saying access should be expanded fully to all women regardless of circumstance. She said, “I am of the opinion that we should legalise abortion. I would further propose that it should not only be limited to victims of rape, but it should be a right to each one who so feels as a woman that I cannot carry full pregnancy of this particular pregnancy. As long as I have decided that I should not carry that pregnancy, it is my right. A woman has her reasons why she would not want to carry that pregnancy.” Furthermore, Sen. Zindi, called for more inclusive and expansive sex education that includes girls and boys equally.
Sen. Kucaca Phulu (M) (CCC) provided greater context in the Mildred Mapingure case from 2006 where she was raped by robbers in her home. After reporting the rape to the police, she was denied 72-hour post-rape prophylaxis by a medical practitioner who demanded that she come with the police officer investigating her case. The police officer was unavailable and abortion services, the entire system referred her from pillar to post until a magistrate approved the abortion long after the 12-week safe period and abortion was no longer an option. He pointed out that the existing Act is inadequate in many ways and needs to either be heavily amended or repealed and replaced. Sen. Phulu called upon the senator chiefs to weigh in on the issue while balancing the traditional and the contemporary aspects. He echoed Sen. Chinyanga in saying that the debate should not degenerate into pro-abortion and anti-abortion rhetoric, but rather, how to prevent disaster.
Sen. Appolonia Munzverengi (F) (ZANU-PF) echoed the sentiments of others regarding the one-stop shop for assisting rape victims and how any amendment to the law must be envisage all possible scenarios.
Sen. Sesel Zvidzai (M) (CCC) brought in a contrarian view that access to abortion should remain pretty much as it is now. He evoked sentiments of sanctity of life, how each foetus is special and may produce the next societal luminary and that killing in any form is against traditional and Christian principles.
Sen. Chief Ngezi (M) added his voice against the motion. He indicated that Parliament had recently passed the Death Penalty Abolition Act and allowing expanded access to abortion was akin to imposing the death penalty on the unborn. “If you terminate a pregnancy, it is as good as killing, just like how we condemned the death sentence,” he said.
Debate Day 2 – 18 March 2025
Sen. Prisca Mupfumira (F) (ZANU-PF) used the example of how President Donald Trump and the United States Supreme Court overturned Roe v Wade and thus ended guaranteed access to abortion facilities in that country. She stated, “If even Trump can stand for life, can we not do the same for Zimbabwe? Pro-life is pro-woman. We cannot elevate one’s life at the expense of another. The life of an unborn child is just as valuable as the life of the woman who carries it.” Citing several biblical verses, she castigated the killing of unborn children and challenged the view from other MPs that families wouldn’t want to raise children of unknown origin by asking the men if they were sure that the children they call their own are theirs. She further used the rhetoric that Zimbabwe is a Christian nation with 80% of the population professing the Christian Faith. Additionally, she pushed for Parliament and society to go after the root cause of rape, incest, and sexual abuse while enacting harsh and deterrent sentences against perpetrators. “Instead of ending lives, we must offer better alternatives such as foster parenting, adoption and safe homes that can provide sanctuary for both the mother and child,” she declared.
Sen. Nonhlanhla Mlotshwa (F) (CCC) urged the Senate to include adolescents who get pregnant through lawful consensual sex with their peers. This group is currently excluded from the TOPA provisions because it is not unlawful intercourse. She highlighted how a girls life changes drastically the moment she falls pregnant and because she’s a minor, she can’t access sexual and reproductive healthcare easily. She pushed for the complete removal of onerous conditions for accessing abortion services and the introduction of a one-stop shop for victims of sexual abuse so that a termination order can be issued within a maximum of four (4) weeks from the date of reporting.
Debate Day 3 – 25 March 2025
Sen/ Tapfumaneyi Muzoda (M) (CCC) invoked both biblical and cultural principles in his debate against the motion. He urged the Senate to respect life and remember “thou shall not kill”. “Nobody agreed that the death sentence must not be abolished, so why do you want to kill those who have not been born yet?”
Sen. Tambudzani Mohadi (F) (ZANU-PF) also attacked the motion from a biblical perspective and reminded her peers that most of them took their parliamentary oaths with their hands on the Christian bible therefore they must follow those principles as much as possible. She stated emphatically, “I am a Christian and I think three quarters of us in here all go to church. I do not know which church allows one to kill because if we were to say, let us allow one to kill legally this unborn child, we know there is this issue which we are using to justify this, the issue of rape. Yes, I agree with the issue of saying there is rape, but our law is saying, let us not encourage such exercises as killing. Let us find another way of handling these issues, not to kill.” In turn, she advocated for stiffer penalties for rapists and sexual abusers akin to mandatory sentences given to cattle rustlers as a deterrent.
The debate on the motion is still ongoing.
An incomplete motion
In my opinion, the motion is incomplete in that it calls upon the Minister of Health to enact the required amendments. Just like the Death Penalty Abolition Bill, this is the perfect opportunity for Sen. Chinyanga to push her own Private Member’s Bill on the same. I would recommend that she amend her motion to request that she bring in a TOPA Amendment Bill. In so doing, Parliament will be taking a proactive step in both addressing a High Court judgment as well as addressing a critical health and social issue affecting numerous women and girls in our country.
Sen. Phulu advised that he is going to move to add further value to the motion and further opined that the Minister of Health should be the first person to propose amendments to the TOPA in view of the High Court judgment.
Senate dynamics
The Senate is comprised of 80 people, 60 politicians, 18 chiefs, and 2 representatives of people living with disabilities. The balancing act between pragmatism, religion and culture is very tight. As mentioned by several senators in their debate, many of them are Christians and therefore consider themselves pro-life. The thought of supporting a motion that allows for abortion in any circumstance goes against their beliefs. Similarly, the chiefs, as traditional leaders, seek to uphold cultural values that are also predominantly pro-life. This is likely to divide the House almost evenly and it will ultimately be up to the female senators to convince their peers to see this motion through.
| Male | Female | |
| Debaters | 5 | 8 |
| For the morion | 1 | 6 |
| Against the motion | 4 | 2 |
| Elected Senators | 25 | 35 |
| Senator Chiefs | 12 | 0 |
| PWD Senators | 1 | 1 |
| Total Senators | 38 | 36 |
Some quick statistics from the debate up to 25 March 2025 show that the road to expanded abortion access will be a tough one.
I hope this motion can get past the religious hurdles that it faces and makes it through as a holistic and expansive amendment Bill that addresses the key concerns of vulnerable populations.
_______________________
Mike Murenzvi writes in his personal capacity and his views are not associated with any organisation he is, or may be, affiliated with.
