Harare's e-hailing crackdown tests the rule of law

By Samuel Chuma | 1h ago

Municipal officers are reportedly posing as passengers, booking rides through the InDrive application and confronting drivers when they arrive.

Harare City Council's reported crackdown on InDrive and Bolt drivers raises an uncomfortable question.

In attempting to enforce the law, are municipal police themselves acting outside it?

This does not defend illegal transport operations. Some e-hailing drivers may be carrying passengers for payment without the licences, registration, vehicle fitness certification or insurance required for commercial passenger transport. Such non-compliance creates real risks. However, suspected illegality by a driver does not give public officials permission to exercise powers they do not possess. Two wrongs can coexist.

Municipal officers are reportedly posing as passengers, booking rides through the InDrive application and confronting drivers when they arrive. At least one driver says he was ordered to pay US$172 after being accused of operating commercially with private yellow number plates. The method has angered drivers, but the most important issue is not the disguise. It is what the officers do after the vehicle arrives.

Drivers must comply

An e-hailing trip is still passenger transport for reward. A smartphone application changes how the customer and driver meet; it does not change the commercial nature of the journey. A person who repeatedly uses a private vehicle to carry paying passengers cannot reasonably claim to be conducting an ordinary private trip.

Drivers therefore have a duty to obtain the correct operator's licence, use properly registered vehicles, keep valid fitness documents and carry adequate passenger and public liability insurance. They must also meet lawful tax and municipal requirements. The convenience of an application cannot replace compliance.

That point should be stated plainly because the rule of law cannot be defended selectively. Drivers cannot demand legal protection from municipal police while ignoring the laws governing their own operations. Yet the same standard applies with equal force to the council.

Keep Reading

Council must prove its authority

Municipal police are not automatically equivalent to the Zimbabwe Republic Police. Their powers arise from legislation and valid council by-laws, not from uniforms, official vehicles or instructions issued by senior council employees. If they arrest, detain, impound or fine someone, they must identify the exact legal power permitting that action.

Zimbabwe has recently debated proposals to expand the powers of municipal police. The fact that expanded arrest and investigative powers have been proposed is itself significant. Proposed authority cannot be treated as existing authority. A Bill, policy announcement or council aspiration does not become law merely because officials believe it would improve enforcement.

If municipal officers are acting alone and telling drivers that they are under arrest, Harare City Council must explain whether those officers have been lawfully designated to enforce national transport legislation. It must also distinguish between issuing a municipal ticket, making a criminal arrest, detaining a person, seizing a vehicle and collecting money. These are different acts requiring different legal foundations.

An officer cannot manufacture jurisdiction at the roadside. Good intentions, revenue pressures and genuine transport problems do not cure an absence of lawful authority. The council must obey the law before demanding obedience from residents.

The passenger disguise

Some drivers describe the undercover bookings as entrapment. That argument is emotionally understandable but legally less convincing than the challenge to municipal authority. There is a difference between persuading an otherwise innocent person to commit an offence and merely creating an opportunity to observe conduct that the person was already willing to undertake.

A driver who has registered on an application, activated availability and accepted an ordinary booking may find it difficult to argue that the passenger created the business. The service was already being offered. The official simply requested it.

The deception may feel unfair, but it is not necessarily unlawful. The decisive questions arise afterward. Who makes the arrest? Under which law? Who authorises the impoundment? How is the penalty calculated? What appeal is available?

Explain the US$172

The reported US$172 payment requires public explanation. A fine cannot be invented according to the mood of an enforcement officer. It must come from a valid law, by-law, tariff or approved penalty schedule. The accused person must be told the offence, the amount due, the consequences of payment and the available right to challenge the allegation.

Council should disclose whether the US$172 was a fine, deposit, towing fee, storage charge, operating levy or a combination of several charges. It should also confirm that an official receipt identified each component. Without that information, the operation risks appearing less like regulation and more like revenue collection through intimidation.

A master plan is not a criminal law. An administrative policy cannot create an offence. A proposed tariff cannot become an instant roadside penalty. Transparency is essential because enforcement without explanation invites abuse and corruption.

Revenue is not the purpose of government

The reported council statement that Harare has not been benefiting from InDrive operations is especially troubling. Government exists to protect the public and manage the city fairly, not to extract money from every livelihood conducted within its boundaries.

Passenger safety, vehicle fitness, driver identification, insurance and tax compliance are legitimate concerns. Revenue may result from lawful licensing, but financial benefit cannot be the primary justification for coercive enforcement. Regulation must serve the public interest and remain lawful, reasonable, proportionate and procedurally fair.

The Constitution protects people against arbitrary treatment and deprivation of liberty. Those protections do not disappear because a driver may be committing a transport offence. A suspected offender remains entitled to know the accusation, the authority of the official and the procedure for contesting it.

Regulate platforms too

Targeting drivers alone is both unfair and ineffective. InDrive and Bolt facilitate bookings, recruit drivers, collect data and benefit financially from completed journeys. They should share responsibility for creating a compliant system.

Platforms should verify operator licences, vehicle registration, fitness certificates and passenger insurance before activating drivers. They should cooperate on taxation, passenger complaints, data protection and local representation. Council should engage the companies openly instead of concentrating enforcement on individual drivers who are easier to frighten and poorer than the corporations behind the applications.

Driver compliance and platform compliance are separate obligations. Neither side should use the failures of the other as an excuse.

Regularisation, not ambushes

Harare needs a practical e-hailing framework designed for digital transport. It should provide affordable licensing, a reasonable compliance period, vehicle inspections, driver vetting, passenger insurance, identifiable permits, transparent charges and accessible appeal procedures.

Existing drivers should receive a short amnesty in which to regularise their operations. After that period, enforcement should be conducted by properly authorised agencies, supported by written notices and official receipts. Operations should protect passengers without humiliating people who are trying to earn a living in a difficult economy.

E-hailing has created jobs and filled gaps in Harare's unreliable transport system. It requires regulation, but regulation must not become persecution. Drivers cannot insist on operating outside transport law. Municipal police cannot enforce powers the law has not given them.

The principle is simple. The rule of law binds the regulator as firmly as it binds the regulated. Before Harare City Council demands compliance from e-hailing drivers, it must show that its own officers, penalties and enforcement methods are lawful.

*Samuel Chuma is a human resources practitioner, published author, poet and social commentator.

These weekly articles are coordinated by Lovemore Kadenge, an independent consultant, managing consultant of Zawale Consultants (Private) Ltd, past president of the Zimbabwe Economics Society and past president of the Chartered Governance and Accountancy Institute in Zimbabwe.

Email: [email protected]

Mobile: +263 77 238 2852