Michael Gwarisa
The Medical Services Amendment Bill [H.B. 6B, 2024] has returned to the National Assembly weeks after passing through the Senate with key amendments.
One of the most controversial changes was the deletion of Clause 11, which sought to simplify access to safe abortion under conditions already permitted by Zimbabwean law. Currently, abortion is legal in Zimbabwe if the pregnancy endangers the mother’s life, risks permanent physical harm, carries a high likelihood of severe fetal defects, or results from unlawful intercourse such as rape or incest.
Following the bill’s return, Speaker of Parliament, Honourable Jacob Mudenda, announced that the National Assembly will now examine the amendments in detail.
Honourable Edwin Mushoriwa, one of the MPs who pushed for the amendments when the bill first passed through the National Assembly, said misinformation played a central role in the deletion of Clause 11.
The bill originated in the National Assembly before moving to the Senate, where Clause 11 was removed after Senators convinced Deputy Minister Sleiman Kwidi that the clause was not in the national interest.
“As a legislator, I must acknowledge that public policy debates sometimes become clouded by misinformation and heightened emotions. In this instance, Clause 11 was unfortunately castigated for something it was never intended to do,” said Hon. Mushoriwa.
While he acknowledged that the Medical Services Amendment Bill was recently returned to the National Assembly following deliberations in the Senate, he does not see Clause 11 being revived.
“Looking ahead, I believe the most pragmatic course of action is to allow Clause 11 to fall away from the current Bill. While we may have lost this particular legislative battle, we have certainly not lost the broader struggle to improve maternal health and ensure clarity in our laws.”
After engagements with the Ministry, he said it became clear that the Senate’s decision to withdraw Clause 11 was largely strategic, aimed at managing the intense pressure around the clause.
“In essence, the Ministry prioritised the passage of the broader Medical Services Bill, even if that meant sacrificing Clause 11,” said Hon. Mushoriwa.
He added that it is important to clarify that Clause 11 was a medical services issue, intended simply to amend the Termination of Pregnancy Act of 1977 to align with the Constitution of Zimbabwe adopted in 2013 and with recent court interpretations of constitutional rights.
“Unfortunately, the public debate around the clause became highly polarised,” he said. “Certain church groups and religious organisations, often without fully examining the contents of the clause, characterised it as introducing ‘abortion on demand’ or legalising abortion in Zimbabwe. That characterisation was incorrect.”
Hon. Mushoriwa emphasised that Clause 11 did not seek to introduce abortion on demand; its purpose was merely to clarify the circumstances under which termination of pregnancy is already permissible under the law and to ensure that statutes are consistent with the Constitution.
“This debate should never have been framed as a contest between pro-life and anti-life positions. At its core, the clause sought legal clarity for medical practitioners and protection for women within the framework already provided by our Constitution.”
In the coming weeks, he intends to introduce a dedicated Bill to amend the Termination of Pregnancy Act itself, allowing Parliament to debate the matter directly, transparently, and with full public understanding of what the law actually proposes.
“Our ultimate objective remains clear: to modernise Zimbabwe’s laws, safeguard maternal health, and ensure that our legislation is fully aligned with the Constitution of Zimbabwe.”
Hon. Kwidi further told the House that the clause had been inserted into the bill without clear authorization, and the original draft did not include it. The deletion has reignited debate over the bill and the future of safe abortion access in Zimbabwe.
