EnviroPress Reporter

A clause in the yet to gazzetted Mines and Minerals Bill has come under intense scrutiny for potentially undermining constitutional principles of equality, inclusivity, and community empowerment.

Clause 6(4)(a)(ii) of the proposed law requires that any person intending to mine a strategic mineral must prove to the Minister of Mines and Mining Development that they possess the capacity to invest at least US$1 million. While the clause allows the Minister discretion to adjust the amount, stakeholders say the baseline figure is arbitrary, exclusionary, and ripe for abuse.

Critics argue that the stipulated amount sets the bar too high for ordinary Zimbabweans and small-scale miners, effectively closing the door on local participation in strategic mineral exploitation. Local companies with limited capital may also find themselves sidelined as large, well-financed foreign corporations step in to fill the void.

“The US$1 million threshold is not just unrealistic for the average citizen—it appears to be a thumb-suck figure that facilitates the monopolisation of strategic minerals by foreign entities,” said the Centre for Natural Resource Governance (CNRG).

Legal experts and civil society groups say this provision flies in the face of Section 56(3) of the Constitution, which outlaws discrimination on the basis of economic or social status.

“You cannot claim to be empowering locals when your laws deliberately exclude them on economic grounds. Laws must apply equally and fairly,” a Harare-based constitutional lawyer said.

The clause also conflicts with Chapter 2 of the Constitution, specifically Section 13, which mandates the state to ensure that local communities benefit from resources in their areas. Observers note that the current formulation of Clause 6(4)(a)(ii) defeats this objective by pricing out communities that lack significant financial capital.

In addition to its exclusionary impact, the clause is being criticised for violating the principles of the rule of law, as enshrined in Section 3(b) of the Constitution. The broad discretion granted to the Minister to alter the investment threshold—without clear, objective criteria—is seen as undermining legal certainty and opening doors to selective application and potential corruption.

“Discretion of this nature defeats the essence of lawmaking. Laws must be clear, predictable and objective. Once we leave things to the whims of individuals, we lose accountability,” said a ruling Zanu PF party legislator who said he will vote for the bill due to the whipping system but does not believe in some of its contents.

The debate comes at a time when Zimbabwe is seeking to position itself as a key player in the global green energy transition, underpinned by its vast lithium and other strategic mineral deposits.

However, critics warn that unless the legislative framework is inclusive and constitutionally sound, the benefits of this mineral wealth will remain out of reach for the majority of Zimbabweans.

As Parliament continues to debate the bill, civil society organisations are urging lawmakers to revise Clause 6(4)(a)(ii) to reflect broader national interests, including equitable access to resources and genuine community empowerment.