A High Court judgment delivered on 11 November 2025 has put Zimbabwe’s 1977 Termination of Pregnancy Act under the spotlight — specifically where it fails to recognise mental health and the rights of women abused while under psychiatric care.

 

1. What was the problem with the old law?

The current Act allows abortion only in three narrow circumstances, if the pregnancy threatens the woman’s physical health or life, if the pregnancy results from rape or incest, or if the woman is under 12.

But two big gaps were identified:

A. Mental health was ignored

The Act only looks at physical danger. It says nothing about situations where pregnancy causes serious psychological harm — such as severe depression, trauma, or suicidal thoughts.

B. Abuse of women with mental illnesses wasn’t recognised

In institutions, women with significant mental-health conditions cannot legally consent to sex. The Mental Health Act recognises this — but the abortion law does not.
So if such a woman fell pregnant through abuse, the Act did not treat it as “unlawful intercourse.”

Two applicants — the Community Working Group on Health (CWGH) and MP Nyasha Batisa — went to court arguing that these omissions violated the Constitution.

2. What did the High Court decide?

Justice Sylvia Chirawu-Mugomba agreed, and ruled that:

A. Mental health is part of health

The judge held that the Constitution protects all aspects of health, not just the physical. That means serious mental-health conditions must be considered when determining whether a pregnancy endangers a woman.

Brief explainer:
In this ruling, “mental health” does not mean madness or only extreme psychiatric illness. It includes the full spectrum of psychological well-being — such as depression, anxiety, trauma, bipolar disorder, or any condition that significantly affects how a person thinks, feels, or copes. The court’s position is that mental health is real, measurable health, and pregnancy can sometimes cause or worsen serious psychological harm just as it can physical harm.

B. Abuse of women with mental illnesses counts as “unlawful intercourse”

If a woman who cannot legally consent becomes pregnant through sexual abuse, she must have the same rights under the abortion law as survivors of rape or incest.

3. Does this change the law immediately?

Not yet.

The judge declared the problematic parts of the Act unconstitutional, but:

1. The ruling is suspended for 18 months,
2. It must be confirmed by the Constitutional Court, and
3. Parliament must amend the Act within that time.

Nothing changes at hospitals today, but the law cannot remain as it is. Parliament is now compelled to modernise it.

4. What does this mean for ordinary people?

A. Mental-health risk will become a legal ground

Once Parliament amends the law, doctors will be able to consider severe mental-health danger — not just physical danger — when guiding patients.

B. New protection for vulnerable women in institutions

Women who cannot consent to sex will no longer be invisible in the law. Abuse that leads to pregnancy must be treated as unlawful, giving access to safe, legal procedures.

C. A modernisation of a 1977 law

The judgment pushes the country to align the abortion law with the rights to dignity, equality, and health found in the 2013 Constitution.

5. What the ruling does not do

• It does not legalise abortion on demand.
• It does not immediately change hospital procedures.
• It does not remove medical assessment requirements.
• It does not rewrite the whole abortion law — only the specific unconstitutional gaps.

6. Why this matters

For the first time, a Zimbabwean court has explicitly stated:

• Mental health = health.
• Women with mental illnesses deserve equal legal protection.
• Abuse in institutions must be acknowledged, not hidden.

It marks a shift toward a more humane, rights-based interpretation of health — one that reflects the reality of women’s lives rather than the limits of a 1977 statute.

Follow-Up Questions & Answers

Q1: Can you show how this ruling compares with abortion laws in other African countries?
Yes. Zimbabwe is now moving closer to countries like South Africa, Kenya (proposed reforms), and Rwanda, which already treat mental-health risk as a legitimate medical ground. I can prepare a comparative table showing grounds, procedures, and limits.

Q2: Could Parliament choose to ignore this ruling or delay?
They can delay, but they cannot ignore it. The declaration of unconstitutionality forces legislative change once the Constitutional Court confirms the judgment. If Parliament fails, citizens or CSOs can apply to compel compliance.

Q3: What would a doctor actually need to prove for mental-health danger to be accepted?
Typically a psychiatrist or qualified mental-health professional would issue an assessment confirming that the pregnancy poses serious psychological risk—suicidal ideation, severe depression, psychosis, or trauma. I can draft an accessible “what qualifies” box if you need one.