Zimbabwe Court Decision Challenges Restrictions on Abortion for Minors and Survivors of Marital Rape

Zimbabwe’s legal landscape faced a pivotal moment as the High Court in Harare ruled that the Termination of Pregnancy Act is unconstitutional in its current form. The ruling, yet to be confirmed by the Constitutional Court, could significantly alter abortion access for minors and married women subjected to marital rape.

The case arose from a legal challenge led by Women in Law in Southern Africa (WLSA), targeting a section of the law that denied access to abortion under specific circumstances. Represented by human rights lawyer Tendai Bit, WLSA argued the legislation failed to align with constitutional protections of human dignity and rights for vulnerable groups.

Justice Maxwell Takuva delivered the judgment, declaring that Section 2(1) of the Termination of Pregnancy Act violates the dignity of adolescent girls and married women who endure sexual violence. He highlighted that Zimbabwe’s constitution guarantees the right to dignity and protection from cruel treatment.

Under the current law, abortion is permitted only when a woman’s life is endangered, the fetus is at risk of severe defects, or if pregnancy results from rape, excluding marital rape. This omission, Justice Takuva argued, undermines recent legal strides recognizing marital rape as a crime.

The ruling also emphasized the constitutional prohibition of child marriages and set the age of sexual consent at 18, a development stemming from earlier landmark judgments. Justice Takuva noted that pregnancies resulting from unlawful intercourse with minors should automatically fall under the law’s provisions for legal abortion.

Teenage pregnancies, often fueled by poverty, expose young girls to a cycle of hardship, forcing them to raise children in adverse conditions. Justice Takuva described this as a violation of constitutional protections against torture and inhumane treatment. He underscored the need for the law to address these realities.

The judgment further condemned the lack of provisions for marital rape within the law’s definition of unlawful intercourse. Justice Takuva maintained that excluding such circumstances breaches multiple constitutional sections, including protections for children and the prohibition of gender discrimination.

While this judgment marks a legal milestone, its implications depend on confirmation by the Constitutional Court. If upheld, it could transform access to safe and legal abortion for many marginalized individuals in Zimbabwe.

The High Court’s ruling aligns with Zimbabwe’s evolving legal framework, which has gradually moved to address issues like child marriages and marital rape. Advocates hope this decision represents a broader shift toward protecting vulnerable groups from systemic abuse.

As societal and legal debates continue, the spotlight remains on the Constitutional Court’s response. The potential affirmation of this ruling could set a precedent for future legislation, ensuring alignment with constitutional mandates and international human rights standards.

Zimbabwe’s legal reforms have been long overdue, especially regarding reproductive rights. The case demonstrates how legal advocacy can challenge entrenched inequalities, paving the way for transformative justice in the nation.

The Zim Bulletin