THE Catholic Lawyers Guild of Zimbabwe has intensified its opposition to proposed amendments to the Medical Services Amendment Bill, warning that the changes amount to a “backdoor” attempt to liberalise abortion laws without public consultation and in violation of the constitution.
In a detailed legal critique, the Guild said it was only at the committee stage of parliament, during the sitting of October 23, 2025, that an opposition legislator, Edwin Mushoriwa, proposed amendments seeking to introduce changes to the Termination of Pregnancy Act through the Medical Services Amendment Bill.
“The information we have reviewed informs us that it was only at the committee stage that a Member of Parliament proposed changes to the Bill to include amendments to the Termination of Pregnancy Act,” the Guild said.
To avoid ambiguity, the lawyers said they would refer to the proposed provisions as “Amendments to the Bill”, arguing that their substance and method of introduction were deeply problematic.
According to the Guild, the proposed amendments would have the effect of allowing abortion on demand up to 12 weeks, permitting termination on grounds of “mental health” or “serious injury” to the woman’s life, and enabling minors to access abortion services without parental consent in cases of emergencies, among other changes.
“These proposed amendments have sparked justifiable criticism not only because of their substance, but also because of the procedure through which they are being introduced,” the lawyers said.
The Guild stressed that abortion remained “a deeply important issue in Zimbabwe’s social, legal and religious fabric”, and warned that any changes to abortion laws must be subjected to thorough public debate and consultation.
“The proposed amendments betray the principle of public consultation and threaten the very fundamental values that underpin Zimbabwean society,” the Guild said.
- Youths take on MPs over sexual health
- 80 000 Zim women abort each year
- High Court strikes down key parts of Zimbabwe’s abortion law
- What landmark High Court ruling on abortion, legal milestones mean for Zimbabwean women
Keep Reading
They cited Section 3 of the constitution, which enshrines Zimbabwe’s founding values, including the supremacy of the constitution, respect for cultural, religious and traditional values, and the recognition of the inherent dignity of every human being.
Drawing on constitutional jurisprudence, the lawyers referenced the Supreme Court judgment in S v Banana (2000), where the court observed that Zimbabwe is a conservative society deeply rooted in its cultural and traditional values.
“There is no evidence to suggest any shift in that perspective,” the Guild said, adding that a World Values Survey conducted in 2020 showed that about 85% of Zimbabweans oppose abortion.
“Passing into law provisions that undermine the majority’s socio-cultural and traditional values without consultation is an egregious violation of the foundations of democratic rule,” the lawyers said.
The Guild further invoked the preamble of the constitution, which begins with the words “We the people of Zimbabwe”, arguing that citizens must remain central to governance and law-making.
“Section 119(1) mandates Parliament to protect the constitution and promote democratic governance,” the Guild said. “In the present case, the people of Zimbabwe are confronted with amendments on which they had no say. This is egregious.”
On constitutional grounds, the Guild said the proposed amendments violated Section 48, which guarantees the right to life, and Section 86, which makes that right absolute.
“Section 48 clearly states that every person has the right to life and that an Act of Parliament must protect the lives of unborn children,” the Guild said.
They argued that the constitution refers to one specific Act of Parliament governing termination of pregnancy — the Termination of Pregnancy Act — and not multiple laws.
“The constitution speaks of ‘that Act’ and ‘that law’, not ‘Acts’ or ‘laws’,” the lawyers said.
“It is therefore impermissible to amend the Termination of Pregnancy Act through another Bill.”
“If there is an intention to amend abortion laws, such amendments must be introduced through a Termination of Pregnancy Amendment Bill and subjected to public consultation and debate.”
The Guild warned that introducing abortion-related provisions at committee stage through a general health statute was procedurally flawed and constitutionally inconsistent. (Read more on Page 10)
