Treasury’s ultimatum is a necessary, credible reform
Treasury’s directive compelling all government departments and agencies to fully automate revenue collection systems by the end of this year is not only plausible, it is overdue.
In a public sector long weighed down by manual processes, opaque controls and entrenched inefficiencies, the ultimatum signals a firmer, more disciplined fiscal posture, one that aligns with the realities of a modern, digitised economy.
Zimbabwe cannot sustainably widen its revenue base or enforce fiscal discipline while large parts of the state still rely on manual systems that invite leakages, abuse and discretion.
The success of the Zimbabwe Revenue Authority’s digital reforms, particularly the rollout of the Tax Administration and Revenue Management System (TaRMS), has provided Treasury with both proof of concept and political cover to extend automation across the broader public sector.
Treasury points to a sharp improvement in revenues in 2025, driven not by higher tax rates but by improved compliance, better visibility and tighter controls. If automation can deliver similar outcomes at revenue-generating agencies such as Zinara, local authorities, licensing bodies and parastatals, the fiscal gains could be substantial.
For a state targeting about US$10 bn in revenue this year, even marginal efficiency improvements translate into meaningful fiscal space.
Treasury’s insistence on a March deadline for Zinara suggests an understanding that reform credibility depends on early, high-impact wins.
Beyond revenue, automation also intersects with governance. Manual systems are not merely inefficient, they are fertile ground for rent-seeking.
Digitisation reduces human discretion, creates audit trails and strengthens accountability.
Treasury’s parallel rollout of the electronic Government Procurement system reinforces this logic.
Together, automated revenue collection and e-procurement form the backbone of a more rules-based public finance system, one that is harder to manipulate and easier to monitor.
That said, the reform is not without risks or legitimate concerns.
Economist Tinashe Murapata’s warning about the growing burden on compliant businesses and individuals cannot be dismissed lightly. When efficiency gains disproportionately draw more revenue from already formalised entities, the perception—and sometimes the reality—of over-taxation intensifies. Treasury’s rebuttal, that recent gains reflect efficiency rather than higher rates, is credible on paper. But perception matters, especially in an economy where informality remains large and growth fragile.
This is where the automation drive must be matched by equal urgency in broadening the tax base horizontally, not just squeezing existing taxpayers vertically. Digitisation should be used to bring previously unrecorded economic activity into the net, not simply to extract more from those already visible. If automation becomes synonymous with relentless extraction rather than fairness, its political and economic sustainability will erode.
Treasury’s argument that the 2026 National Budget is largely pro-industry, anchored on tax reductions across most lines, offers some reassurance. If followed through consistently, this balance between efficiency-driven collection and growth-supportive policy could help defuse tensions between the state and the productive sector.
Ultimately, Treasury’s automation ultimatum represents a necessary step in rebuilding fiscal credibility.
The real test, however, lies in execution.
