An Overview of the Patriotic Act

RUTENDO MANHIMANZI

The Patriotic Act, officially known as the Criminal Law (Codification and Reform) Amendment Act No. 10 of 2023, is a contentious law that generated widespread criticism and concerns about its impact on democratic freedoms and human rights.

The Purpose of the Patriotic Act

1. Protecting Sovereignty and National Image

• One of the main thrust of the Act was to stop Zimbabweans from intentionally inviting foreign interference into national affairs or issues or tarnishing the nation’s image abroad. The Act criminalizes participation in meetings with foreign governments or their agents that discuss or plan sanctions, trade boycotts, or armed intervention against Zimbabwe.
• These included the lobbying for sanctions, engaging foreign governments, or speaking negatively about Zimbabwe internationally as this would  amount to being unpatriotic.

• The opposition parties and civil society have often been accused of campaigning for those sanctions and thus the Act would punish such conduct if proved.

1. Strengthening State Security Laws

The government of Zimbabwe aimed to:

• Strengthen laws against foreign collaboration through the introduction of legislation to deter citizens from working with foreign powers on issues that might be perceived as contrary to national interests.
• Limit engagement with international bodies by restricting individuals, civic groups, and organizations from engaging with international entities on matters such as human rights, corruption, and governance.

 

1. Political Control and Silencing Dissent

• Generally, the Act was viewed as a mechanism to silence criticism and  suppress dissenting voices and limit freedom of expression.
• Its broad and  vague language posed a risk to ordinary citizens who critically analyzed economic policies or expressed their opinions online or at international forums, potentially labeling them unpatriotic.
• It was viewed as a political weapon used to intimidate and silence opposition parties, activists, and journalists.

 

Background: What is the Patriotic Act?

The provisions, passed in 2023 under amendments to the Criminal Law (Codification and Reform) Act, introduced provisions that criminalized conduct prejudicial to the sovereignty and national interest of Zimbabwe. In effect, the law targeted citizens who:

• Criticized government policies abroad by speaking out against the government while outside Zimbabwe.
  • Engaged with foreign governments or organizations in ways deemed harmful by the state.
  • Advocated for sanctions or international intervention or action against Zimbabwe.

The penalties for these offenses were severe, including:

• Death or life imprisonment for subversion.
• Up to 20 years’ imprisonment for subverting or overthrowing the government.
• Fines or imprisonment for participating in meetings, boycotts and calling for sanctions with additional penalties such as:

1. Termination of citizenship
2. Cancellation of permanent residence

• Disqualification from voting

1. Prohibition from holding public office.

 

The Court Challenge

Civil society organizations and opposition figures swiftly challenged the Patriotic Act after its enactment, arguing that it infringed upon fundamental freedoms enshrined in the Constitution of Zimbabwe (2013). Specifically, that the law violated:

1. Freedom of Expression and Media (Section 61): The right to express opinions and ideas without fear of persecution.
2. Freedom of Assembly and Association (Section 58): The right to gather, associate, and participate in public discourse.
3. Political Rights (Section 67): The right to participate in the political process and engage in legitimate political debate.

Central Argument:

The Act’s provisions were deemed too vague and overly broad, allowing for arbitrary enforcement and criminalizing legitimate political debate. This ambiguity created limitations on freedom of speech and civic engagement.

Landmark Judgment:

In June 2025 the High Court of Zimbabwe delivered a landmark judgment, striking down key provisions of the Patriotic Act and declaring them unconstitutional. This ruling marked a significant victory for democracy, human rights, and the rule of law in Zimbabwe. The judges identified several critical issues including:

1. Lack of Clarity: The law failed to clearly define what conduct was criminal, making it impossible for citizens to predict what actions would be punishable.
2. Freedom of Speech: The Act’s severe penalties for criticizing the government created a suppressive effect on free speech, undermining the very foundation of a democratic society.
3. Disproportionate Restrictions: The restrictions on individual freedoms were disproportionate and unjustifiable in a democratic society, failing to balance national security with human rights.

Struck Down Provisions:

• Section 22A(3): The court struck down this section, which allowed for penalties such as:

– Citizenship revocation

– Restriction of voting rights

– Bans from holding public office

• The provision had criminalized participation in meetings discussing sanctions against Zimbabwe, a move that was deemed vague and overly broad.
• The court’s decision protects individual freedoms and ensures that citizens can exercise their constitutional rights without fear of persecution. By striking down unconstitutional provisions, the court promotes democratic values and reinforces the importance of constitutional governance.

 

Notable Exception:

The court upheld this section 22A (2), which penalizes citizens who conspire with foreign powers to overthrow the government, deeming the provision constitutional.

 

Broader Implications

1. Judicial independence

The court’s decision sends a strong signal that the judiciary is willing to assert its authority and check the powers of the executive and legislature, even when it comes to politically sensitive laws. This move underscores the importance of judicial independence and the rule of law. The decision reinforces the principle of separation of powers.

Constitutional Supremacy

The court’s ruling reinforces the fundamental principle that no law is above the Constitution. By upholding constitutional rights, the decision serves as a powerful affirmation of the rule of law and safeguarding democracy.

Upholding Constitutional Supremacy means the Constitution remains the supreme law of the land, ensuring that individual rights and freedoms are protected from legislative overreach and prevent abuse of power.

 

2. Protection of Civic Space

The recent court ruling has given civil society groups, journalists, and activists robust legal backing to engage in open debate without fear of persecution under the Patriotic Act. This development is crucial for promoting freedom of expression and association, as restrictions on these fundamental rights can stifle critical discourse and limit citizens’ ability to hold their government accountable.

Checks and Balances are essential for growth and improvement as a state, allowing citizens to express themselves freely and contribute to public discourse and national growth. Citizens can hold their government accountable, fostering transparency and good governance. By protecting these fundamental rights, we strengthen democracy and promote a culture of openness, tolerance, and inclusivity.

 

3. International perception

At a time when Zimbabwe seeks re-engagement with the global community, the judgment may boost perceptions of respect for rule of law.

4. Other Jurisdictions

 

1. United States – Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA)

The law mandates that individuals or entities representing foreign governments or interests must register and disclose their activities. If they fail to comply, they may face prosecution, fines, or imprisonment. The law covers a broad range of “political activities,” including efforts to influence public opinion or policy in a country, particularly when working on behalf of a foreign government or entity.

 

1. China – National Security Law (2015) and Hong Kong’s National Security Law (2020)

Broad laws targeting secession, subversion, terrorism, and foreign collusion. Criticized as these laws are regarded as suppressing dissenting voices under the pretext of promoting patriotism. Those found guilty face harsh penalties, including short-term detention, restriction orders, or even life imprisonment, under national security legislation.

 

1. Russia – Foreign Agents Law

The law requires NGOs, journalists, and individuals receiving foreign funding (regardless of how minimal it might be) to register as “foreign agents.” This label can be used to suppress civil society, and opposition voices and limits civic engagement.

 

1. Ethiopia – Anti-Terrorism Proclamation (2009)

The law requires everyone, including media and journalists, to report terrorism-related information to law enforcement. Critics argue that this law is often used to target journalists and opposition figures under the guise of national security and patriotism. A major concern is that the law lacks safeguards to prevent the misuse of executive power and protect freedom of expression.

 

1. Uganda – Anti-Sectarianism and Anti-Terrorism Laws

Authorities often use broad anti-terrorism laws to suppress criticism of the government, claiming it protects “national unity.” However, the vague definition of terrorism allows for its application beyond violent acts, enabling the criminalization of political dissent, journalists, and opposition figures. Human rights groups contend that this undermines fundamental freedoms, including expression, assembly, and association.

 

Conclusion

The Patriotic Act, despite  aiming to protect sovereignty and unity, posed a threat to fundamental rights and freedoms. Its vague provisions blurred the line between patriotism and dissent, risking a culture of fear, silenced criticism, and eroded trust in government. The striking down of the Patriotic Act’s provisions marks one of the most significant legal victories for freedom of expression. It highlights the tension between state power and individual rights and affirms the role of courts as guardians of democracy.  Zimbabwe faces the challenge of balancing national interests with the fundamental freedoms that lie at the heart of democracy. Fundsmentally, its noteworthy that valuing the sovereignty of a nation is important because it’s the very foundation of a state’s independence and dignity.

 

 

 

 

 

Rutendo Manhimanzi is a registered Legal Practitioner, and she practices in Avondale, Harare under the Law Firm Ruzvidzo Legal Counsel. She can be reached on +263 773 589 263 or email rmanhimanzi@yahoo.com