Academic discipline or constitutional violation? A think piece on reforming the University of Zimbabwe’s disciplinary framework

In recent days, several student leaders affiliated with the Zimbabwe National Students Union (ZINASU) have been summarily suspended from the University of Zimbabwe, pending disciplinary hearings.

These actions have been executed under the authority of Ordinance 30 of 1985, a regulatory tool whose vague language and authoritarian scope have long been used to silence dissent and suppress student activism. This is not unprecedented.

In 2011, I too was suspended from the University of Zimbabwe for participating in a peaceful protest against rising tuition fees. The following year, I was expelled after sham Student Disciplinary Committee (SDC) hearing.

My experience is not unique, dozens of student activists over the years have been arbitrarily suspended or expelled, often without the benefit of fair process, and many have struggled to complete their studies as a result.

These patterns raise urgent constitutional and human rights questions about the continued use of a disciplinary regime rooted in colonial logic and outdated legal norms.

In this think piece, my central question is: Can a university punish students for protesting, dissolve student unions, or suspend learners without due process; even when such actions contradict the country’s supreme law?

This question sits at the very heart of ongoing tensions between Zimbabwe’s evolving constitutional democracy and the lingering legacy of outdated draconian post-colonial relics of legislation.

At the University of Zimbabwe (UZ), Ordinance 30 and the University of Zimbabwe Act, particularly Section 8, grant sweeping disciplinary powers to the Vice-Chancellor, Wardens, and University Proctors.

Yet these provisions often are contrary to the Constitution of 2013, especially Sections 58 (freedom of association), 59 (freedom to demonstrate and petition), 60 (freedom of conscience), 69 (right to a fair hearing), and 70 (rights of accused persons).

As per Section 2(1) of the Constitution, any law or conduct inconsistent with the Constitution is invalid to the extent of that inconsistency.

The implication is clear: Ordinance 30 and elements of the University Act must be reviewed and reformed to reflect contemporary democratic values and constitutional supremacy.

Use of power ultra vires the constitution

To make my case clearer, I will demonstrate how Ordinance 30 and Vice-Chancellor’s powers violate fundamental rights set out in the constitution. Firstly, there is flagrant suppression of dissent by violating Freedom of Assembly and Protest set out in Section 59.

Ordinance 30, Rule 3.1.3 prohibits “disrupting” administrative work or “preventing” others from working. While ostensibly reasonable, such provisions are overbroad, potentially criminalising peaceful protests and sit-ins, which are protected forms of assembly.

Further, Section 8(3)(d) of the Act empowers the Vice-Chancellor to ban students from campus indefinitely for “disorderly conduct”, without applying a test of necessity or proportionality as required by rules of natural justice.

Comparable international jurisprudence, such as the South African Constitutional Court ruling in SASCO v University of Cape Town (2017), found that blanket prohibitions on student protests contravene democratic norms and must pass strict constitutional scrutiny.

In Zimbabwe, in the case of Chikweche v University of Zimbabwe (1995) the courts confirmed the right to religious expression within educational institutions.

This is a clear demonstration of the judiciary’s willingness to uphold constitutional freedoms against institutional overreach.

Secondly, there is deliberate undermining of Student Representation which violates Freedom of Association set in Section 58. Section 8(3)(f) of the Act allows the VC to dissolve student unions without requiring judicial oversight or independent review, literary becoming the judge, jury and executioner.

This must never be allowed to fly in constitutional democracy and there is no precedence of similar powers across other jurisdictions.

Ordinance 30, Rule 3.3.1 holds students collectively responsible for group actions unless they publicly dissociate, placing a chilling effect on student organising.

The recent case of activists like Narshon Kohlo show how absurdly far this rule can be stretched to silence activists. These provisions erode the autonomy and vibrancy of student movements, that are key components of a healthy academic environment and a productive university.

While I could not find confirmed court rulings in Zimbabwe specifically on this point, regional parallels do provide comparable direction.

The Kenyan High Court (2016) ruled that students’ right to associate through unions must be safeguarded from arbitrary dissolution under the Universities Act.

Thirdly, there is brazen and arbitrary punishments and lack of due process provided for in Sections 69 and 70. The Vice-Chancellor may suspend students before any hearing under Section 8(3)(e). Only expulsion requires consultation with the Student Disciplinary Committee (SDC).

Ordinance 30, Rule 4.2.3 allows disciplinary proceedings to proceed in absentia if a student “fails to appear”, even without proof of service.

In practice, the university administration has a tendency to ambush students for hearings so that they fail to turn up and pass judgments in absentia. Such actions violate the Constitution’s guarantee of a fair and public hearing by an impartial tribunal.

Although no confirmed decision exists under the 2013 Constitution, In the Chikweche case the court emphasised that disciplinary powers must be exercised in a manner that respects natural justice.

Fourth and finally, the provisions of the Ordinance provide for vague offenses and legal uncertainty that undermine rights provided Section 56. Ordinance 30, Rule 3.1.4 penalises conduct “harmful to the University’s interests.”

This language is impermissibly vague and could be used to punish mere criticism or dissent. In the landmark case of Madzimbamuto v. Lardner-Burke (1969), albeit in a different political and historical epoch, the court underscored the importance of legal clarity and predictability.

Laws that do not define offenses with precision invite abuse and are weapons for authorities to literary butcher dissenters.

A colonial legacy and higher education sector in doldrums

Ordinance 30 was formulated during the early post-independence period, 1985 to be specific, a time still heavily influenced by colonial administrative culture and the Smith regime’s racialised disciplinary systems.

The Lancaster House Constitution, then in effect, lacked a broad and enforceable Bill of Rights. The disciplinary regime was thus a continuation of colonial governance styles, emphasising control over participatory governance and iron clad authority over reasonable and democratic decision-making.

The adoption of the 2013 Constitution fundamentally changed Zimbabwe’s legal landscape. It introduced robust guarantees for human rights, placing duties on all public institutions, including universities, to respect, promote, and fulfill constitutional rights.

Yet, key parts of the UZ disciplinary framework remain untouched by this normative shift and advocacy has not strategically focused to challenge and demand alignment of these pieces of law with the constitution.

While the historical account shows the inherent untenability of these provisions, they have a far-reaching ongoing impact. First, academic freedom is at risk across all institutions of higher learning Zimbabwe.

The threat of disciplinary sanction for peaceful expression discourages debate and critical inquiry, vital aspects of learning and innovation.

This is contrary to the UNESCO 1997 Recommendation on the Status of Higher-Education Teaching Personnel, which affirms the right of academic communities to engage in institutional governance and protest.

Secondly, continued use of colonial-era disciplinary laws undermines the University of Zimbabwe’s legitimacy as a modern institution committed to human rights, decoloniality and democratic values.

Vice Chancellor Mapfumo cannot stand with his peers in the region and beyond as an academic administrator while actively stifling the very values that make a university. Clearly, the UZ has become a pariah and VC Mapfumo, and his administration must be held to account.

Challenging the draconian law

What is imperative is that everyone who has passed through the University of Zimbabwe should be concerned. This includes dozens of parliamentarians across the political divide who are UZ alumni and even current students.

They must immediately start the question to align the various universities act with the constitution and in fact aggregating the many acts into a single law governing universities in Zimbabwe.

Part of those amendments must narrow the Vice-Chancellor’s powers, particularly those allowing suspensions without hearings or dissolution of unions.

Secondly, and perhaps urgently considering the onslaught by the UZ administration on students, is to undertake judicial review.

Ordinance 30 can be challenged under Section 175(6)(a) of the Constitution, which empowers the Constitutional Court to determine whether any law is inconsistent with the Constitution.

Thirdly, students and progressive Civil Society must form a coalition to challenge these draconian laws and raise the political capital of using them by university administrations. Ultimately, it is struggle that forces change!

Conclusion

My last point is that a university’s rules should nurture democracy, not undermine it. Reforming Ordinance 30 and the University Act is not just about technical compliance; it is a constitutional and moral imperative.

These reforms would not only align UZ with Zimbabwe’s democratic aspirations but also restore academic spaces as laboratories of critical engagement, dissent, and transformation.

I conclude by posing the question: If the Constitution binds parliament, executive, judiciary and indeed all of us, why not our universities?

Pride Mkono is a social justice activist and former Zinasu President (2011-2013). He writes here on his own capacity and can be contacted on [email protected]