In 2011, I too was suspended from the University of Zimbabwe for participating in a peaceful protest against rising tuition fees.
The following year, I was expelled after sham Student Disciplinary Committee (SDC) hearing.
My experience is not unique, dozens of student activists over the years have been arbitrarily suspended or expelled, often without the benefit of fair process, and many have struggled to complete their studies as a result.
These patterns raise urgent constitutional and human rights questions about the continued use of a disciplinary regime rooted in colonial logic and outdated legal norms.
In this think piece, my central question is: Can a university punish students for protesting, dissolve student unions, or suspend learners without due process; even when such actions contradict the country’s supreme law?
This question sits at the very heart of ongoing tensions between Zimbabwe’s evolving constitutional democracy and the lingering legacy of outdated draconian post-colonial relics of legislation.
At the University of Zimbabwe (UZ), Ordinance 30 and the University of Zimbabwe Act, particularly Section 8, grant sweeping disciplinary powers to the Vice-Chancellor, Wardens, and University Proctors.
Yet these provisions often are contrary to the Constitution of 2013, especially Sections 58 (freedom of association), 59 (freedom to demonstrate and petition), 60 (freedom of conscience), 69 (right to a fair hearing), and 70 (rights of accused persons).
As per Section 2(1) of the Constitution, any law or conduct inconsistent with the Constitution is invalid to the extent of that inconsistency.
The implication is clear: Ordinance 30 and elements of the University Act must be reviewed and reformed to reflect contemporary democratic values and constitutional supremacy.
To make my case clearer, I will demonstrate how Ordinance 30 and Vice-Chancellor’s powers violate fundamental rights set out in the constitution.
Firstly, there is flagrant suppression of dissent by violating Freedom of Assembly and Protest set out in Section 59.
Ordinance 30, Rule 3. 1. 3 prohibits “disrupting” administrative work or “preventing” others from working.
While ostensibly reasonable, such provisions are overbroad, potentially criminalising peaceful protests and sit-ins, which are protected forms of assembly.
Further, Section 8(3)(d) of the Act empowers the Vice-Chancellor to ban students from campus indefinitely for “disorderly conduct”, without applying a test of necessity or proportionality as required by rules of natural justice.
Comparable international jurisprudence, such as the South African Constitutional Court ruling in SASCO v University of Cape Town (2017), found that blanket prohibitions on student protests contravene democratic norms and must pass strict constitutional scrutiny. 🔗 Read Full Article
All Zim News is a central hub for all things Zimbabwean, curating news from across the country so no story is missed.
Alongside aggregation, our team of nationwide reporters provides real-time, on-the-ground coverage.
Stay informed and connected — reach us at admin@allzimnews. com.
