Fidelicy Nyamukondiwa

The President has signed into law the Persons with Disabilities Act (PWD Act), replacing the outdated Disabled Persons Act of 1992. The gazetting of the PWD Act on 21 November 2025 is the dawn of a new era in upholding the rights of persons with disabilities (PWDs) in Zimbabwe. This editorial provides a brief analysis of the new Act. 

legal framework

The Constitution of Zimbabwe adopts a human rights model of disability. Sections 22 and 83 impose obligations on the government and all its institutions to take measures to ensure promotion and protection of the rights of PWDs on an equal basis with others.

Notably, Zimbabwe ratified the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD) and its Optional Protocol in September 2013.  In May 2024, the country ratified the African Union’s African Disability Rights Protocol (ADRP). Ratification of these international human treaties signifies Zimbabwe’s commitment to ensuring PWDs fully enjoy their fundamental rights.

Whilst the PWD Act formally acknowledges Zimbabwe’s obligation under the CRPD, it ironically omits to officially recognise the country’s ratification of the ADRP. A formal acknowledgment in the new Act would have provided a clear demonstration of the government’s political will and genuine commitment to uphold international norms.

Use of Person-First Language.

Commendably, the PWD Act adopted Person-First Language. This language puts the individual before their disability, condition, or diagnosis. For example, instead of referring to someone as a cancer patient or a diabetic person, the preferred term is a person with cancer or a person with diabetes. Similarly, Person-First Language discourages labelling PWDs as disabled persons. It is praiseworthy that the title of the Act was changed from ‘Disabled Persons Act’ to ‘Persons with Disabilities Act’. 

Definition of disability

Historically, the definition of disability was narrow to the extent that it excluded persons with albinism, epilepsy, and other forms of disability. The PWD Act adopted a definition that encompasses long-term physical, mental, intellectual, or sensory impairments that may hinder them from fully and effectively participating in society on an equal basis with others.

PWDs as right holders 

The new Act adopts a human rights model of disability, which regards PWDs as rights holders and not as objects of charity. The Act contains specific provisions on the rights of children and women with disabilities, recognising their vulnerability and need for special protection. The Act imposes an obligation on the government to ensure parents of children with disabilities receive support, capacitation and training. It also recognises the rights of persons with multiple impairments and the rights of PWDs in situations of armed conflicts and humanitarian situations such as natural disasters.

Section 23 of the new Act has safeguards for access to justice for PWDs. It makes provision for free legal aid for PWDs who are indigent.  The Act also requires that police officers, prosecutors, prison officers, judicial and other court officials be adequately trained to handle cases involving PWDs. 

The PWD Act stipulates that PWDs are entitled to reasonable access to all indoor and outdoor places. Inclusion of the word ‘reasonable’ seems to conflict with section 22(4) of the Constitution, which obligates the state to take measures to ensure public buildings and amenities are fully accessible to PWDs. 

The new Act also guarantees PWDs the right to education in their preferred language and to have access to inclusive, quality, and free primary and secondary education on an equal basis with others. 

Commendably, the Act prescribes labour rights for PWDS.  It provides that, two years after its enactment, government institutions and parastatals with at least 50 employees should ensure that two per cent of their total workforce are PWDs. Private corporations are granted tax exemptions of US$50 per month per employee with disability and a maximum of US$2500 per year of assessment. 

Among other human rights safeguards, the PWD Act contains provisions on an adequate standard of living and social protection; participation in political and public life; participation in cultural life, recreation, leisure, and sport; non-discrimination; independent living; the right to the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of health, personal mobility, and the right to privacy. 

Registration requirement

The PWA Act requires organisations for persons with disabilities (OPDs) to be registered. The registration modalities prescribed in the Act are arguably cumbersome. Additionally, OPDs must register as PVOs to qualify for government funding and assistance. This renders informal organisations unregistrable. Overall, the registration requirement can act as a barrier, thereby leaving some PWDs behind. 

The National Disability Board

The PWD Bill had envisioned the abolishment of the National Disability Board (NDP) and replacing it with a Commission for PWDs. Instead, the PWD Act retained the board, renamed it the National Disability Affairs Board (NDAB), and, in certain respects, widened its scope and mandate. 

Some disability activists and advocates had welcomed the idea of a Commission, arguing that it aligns with Article 33 of CRPD, which obligates countries to establish independent mechanisms to monitor the enjoyment of rights of PWDs. With all due respect, the establishment of a Commission would have been a duplication of resources, as Zimbabwe already has the Zimbabwe Human Rights Commission, a National Human Rights Institution (NHRI). It is settled under international human rights law that NHRIs are implicitly nominated to monitor the implementation of the rights of PWDs enshrined in the CRPD. 

Section 3 of the PWD Act blows hot and cold air. It is creditable in that it calls for gender sensitivity in the appointment of board members. It also provides that 10 of the board members must be appointed from a list of names submitted by OPDs, which the Minister considers represent persons with disabilities.

Whilst this may ensure a significant number of board members are PWDs, the section remains controversial in many respects. Firstly, qualified PWDs who are not affiliated with any associations or OPDs will likely be left behind. Secondly, the Minister is given the discretion to decide on which OPDs to consider. Will names supplied by informal or unregistered associations or organisations be considered? Does this discretionary power guarantee the “Leave No One Behind” principle? 

Conclusion

The newly enacted Persons with Disabilities Act adopts a human rights-based model of disability that is largely consistent with international human rights standards and, most importantly, the Constitution of Zimbabwe. However, certain provisions in the Act appear to fall short of fully safeguarding the rights of PWDs in keeping with the ‘leave no one behind’ principle.

Nyamukondiwa Fidelicy is a provincial manager at Zimbabwe Human Rights Commission, writing here in his personal capacity as a legal expert.