Zimbabwe should establish specialised environmental courts and strengthen judicial training to speed up the handling of wetland and other environmental disputes, Zimbabwe Lawyers for Human Rights executive director Bellinda Chinowawa has said.
Chinowawa made the call during the launch of the organisation’s publication, Litigating for Conservation: A ZLHR Case Analysis of Wetland and Vital Water Sources Protection in Zimbabwe.
She said environmental cases often involve complex scientific evidence, planning regulations, statutory obligations and competing constitutional rights, making specialised expertise essential within the justice system.
“The quality of environmental justice depends, in large part, on whether judicial officers have the capacity and expertise to properly engage with these issues,” Chinowawa said. “Our judges need specialised training, and we may even benefit from having specialised environmental courts to handle cases such as these.”
Although Zimbabwe has laws that can be used to challenge environmental violations, Chinowowa said the existing framework was not being implemented effectively enough to deter offenders or ensure timely remedies.
She cited delays in institutional decision-making, procedural hurdles and difficulties in enforcing court orders as some of the obstacles faced by communities seeking to protect wetlands and water sources.
“We have seen situations where the legal framework appears strong, but the protection and promise does not always materialise on the ground,” she said.
“There are gaps between obtaining a legal remedy and actually securing compliance.”
Zimbabwe’s anti-corruption courts, established in 2018 to expedite corruption cases and asset-forfeiture proceedings, provide a possible model for dealing with environmental matters, according to the lawyers.
Under the current system, members of the public may petition the Minister of Environment over developments affecting wetlands. However, residents are often forced to approach the High Court for an interdict to stop construction while their complaints are being considered.
ZLHR legal officer Kelvin Kabaya said the law does not set a deadline for the minister to determine challenges against environmental decisions, including the issuance of an Environmental Impact Assessment certificate.
“Section 130 of the Act allows people to challenge the issuance of an EIA certificate. They file the challenge with the Minister of Environment, but unfortunately there is no timeframe within which the minister must determine it,” Kabaya said.
He said the absence of an automatic suspension mechanism meant that disputed projects could continue while communities waited for a government decision.
“Unless you approach the courts for an interdict pending the determination of the challenge before the minister, whatever project you are challenging continues on the ground,” Kabaya said. “There are no in-built mechanisms for suspending the implementation of the project unless you approach the court.”
ZLHR warned that prolonged legal and administrative delays could result in the destruction of wetlands and threaten the availability of water for future generations.
