Trymore Tagwirei

Rising destruction of Zimbabwe’s wetlands has triggered renewed calls for dedicated judicial mechanisms to handle environmental disputes, with Zimbabwe Lawyers for Human Rights proposing the establishment of specialised environmental courts.

The demand follows the release of a new report by the legal rights organisation examining the role of strategic litigation in safeguarding wetlands and vital water sources across the country.

The publication, titled “Litigating for Conservation: A ZLHR Case Analysis of Wetland and Vital Water Sources Protection in Zimbabwe”, documents key environmental lawsuits handled by the organisation and systemic hurdles that undermine enforcement.

Crucial for groundwater recharge, flood mitigation, water storage, and biodiversity, Zimbabwe’s wetlands face pressure from rapid urban expansion, mining operations, infrastructure projects, industrial pollution, and agricultural encroachment.

Speaking at the launch, ZLHR Executive Director Belinda Chinowawa (pictured) said that environmental litigation required a judiciary equipped with targeted expertise, noting that the strength of environmental justice depended on the capacity of judicial officers.

“There is need for greater judicial expertise in handling environmental matters. Environmental disputes often involve complex scientific evidence, land-use and planning considerations, regulatory requirements, as well as competing constitutional rights.

Researched and authored by ZLHR secretariat member Azaria Kutsanzira, the report evaluates constitutional protections, domestic legislation such as the Environmental Management Act, and international treaty obligations under the Ramsar Convention, the Convention on Biological Diversity, and the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights.

It identifies key operational breakdowns, including commercial developments proceeding without valid Environmental Impact Assessments, poor inter-agency coordination, lax regulatory enforcement, and routine defiance of court orders.

ZLHR Legal Officer Kelvin Kabaya highlighted that public-interest litigants face severe procedural barriers that impede urgent intervention. Section 130 of the Environmental Management Act allows aggrieved parties to appeal against the issuance of an Environmental Impact Assessment certificate to the Minister of Environment. However, the law prescribes no binding timeline for the Minister to deliver a ruling, leaving environmentally damaging projects free to continue while administrative challenges stall.

“The lack of a time frame is a major concern. For instance, Section 130 of the Act allows people to challenge the issuance of an EIA certificate. You can file your challenge with the Minister of Environment, but unfortunately, there is no specified time frame within which the Minister is required to determine the application,” Kabaya said.