By Princess Eugene Majuru
On April 18, Zimbabwe commemorates independence from British colonial rule. The day symbolizes liberation, sovereignty, and self-determination. Yet beneath this celebration lies a profound contradiction: Zimbabwe continues to operate under legal principles rooted in colonial systems—most notably Roman-Dutch law.
This enduring legal inheritance raises a critical question: can a nation be fully independent when its legal foundation is still colonial in origin?
What is Roman-Dutch Law and How Did It Enter Zimbabwe?
Roman-Dutch law is a European legal system developed in the Netherlands, later exported through colonial expansion. It was imposed in Southern Africa through colonial administrations, including in Rhodesia (now Zimbabwe).
After independence in 1980, Zimbabwe did not fully dismantle this system. Instead, it was retained and incorporated into the broader legal framework, including under the 2013 Constitution.
Constitutional Recognition of Colonial Legal Systems
While the Constitution does not explicitly use the phrase “Roman-Dutch law” in every provision, its existence is preserved through the recognition of “the general law”, which historically refers to Roman-Dutch law.
Section 89 & Section 90 (Executive Authority and Rule of Law Context)
These provisions emphasize governance according to “the law,” but the substance of that law includes inherited colonial legal doctrines.
Section 171(1)(a): Applicable Law
“The law to be administered by the courts is the law that was in force in Zimbabwe on the effective date…”
Why this is significant:
This clause locks in pre-independence law, including Roman-Dutch law.
It creates legal continuity with colonial Rhodesia, rather than a clean constitutional break.
Impact:
Zimbabwe’s courts are constitutionally mandated to apply laws developed under colonial rule unless they are specifically changed. This effectively preserves colonial legal authority within an independent state.
Section 2: Supremacy of the Constitution
“This Constitution is the supreme law of Zimbabwe…”
At first glance, this appears empowering. However:
The contradiction:
If the Constitution itself embeds colonial legal principles, then its supremacy entrenches those colonial elements.
It becomes a mechanism not of liberation—but of preservation of inherited systems.
Impact:
Zimbabweans are bound by a supreme law that still carries foreign legal DNA, limiting the full expression of indigenous governance.
Section 63: Language and Access to Justice
“Every person has the right to use the language… of their choice…”
Despite this provision:
Courts operate primarily in English
Legal texts and proceedings rely on colonial legal terminology
Why this matters:
Roman-Dutch law is not just foreign in origin—it is also linguistically and conceptually inaccessible to many Zimbabweans.
Impact:
Justice becomes elitist and exclusionary
Ordinary citizens are alienated from the legal system governing them
Customary Law vs Roman-Dutch Law: A Structural Imbalance
Section 282: Traditional Leaders
Recognizes traditional leadership but places it within a state-controlled framework.
Section 16 & Cultural Rights
Acknowledges culture, but does not elevate customary law to equal status.
The imbalance:
Roman-Dutch law = dominant, formal, enforceable
Customary law = secondary, conditional, limited
Impact:
Indigenous systems are subordinated
African jurisprudence is treated as inferior
Cultural identity is legally weakened
Why Roman-Dutch Law is Viewed as Suppressive
1. It is Foreign and Imposed
Roman-Dutch law was never developed for Zimbabweans. It reflects European values, priorities, and social structures.
2. It Undermines Indigenous Systems
Traditional dispute resolution, communal ownership, and restorative justice are overshadowed by adversarial, individualistic legal models.
3. It Creates Legal Inequality
Those trained in Western law—lawyers, judges, elites—hold power, while ordinary citizens are excluded.
4. It Perpetuates Colonial Power Structures
Even without colonial rulers, the system of control remains intact.
The Independence Paradox
Zimbabwe fought a liberation struggle to reclaim:
Land
Identity
Sovereignty
Yet the continued reliance on Roman-Dutch law reveals a deeper truth:
Political independence was achieved, but legal independence was deferred.
The Constitution, rather than being a revolutionary break from colonialism, often functions as a bridge that carries colonial systems into the present.
Why Constitutional Amendment is Necessary
To resolve this contradiction, Zimbabwe must confront the colonial foundations of its legal system.
1. Repeal or Reform Section 171
Remove automatic continuation of pre-independence law
Replace with a framework grounded in Zimbabwean realities
2. Elevate Customary Law
Grant it equal constitutional status
Allow it to operate independently, not conditionally
3. Develop Indigenous Jurisprudence
Create legal principles based on Zimbabwean culture, history, and values
Reduce reliance on European legal doctrines
4. Language Reform
Promote indigenous languages in courts and legal education
Democratize access to justice
5. Redefine Legal Identity
Move from a borrowed system to a self-defined national legal philosophy
Completing the Liberation
Independence is not a moment—it is a process.
As Zimbabwe marks April 18, it must confront a difficult but necessary reality: true sovereignty cannot exist alongside inherited systems of control.
Roman-Dutch law, preserved through constitutional provisions, represents more than a legal framework—it represents an unfinished decolonization project. To honor the sacrifices of the liberation struggle, Zimbabwe must go beyond symbolic independence and pursue structural transformation. Only then can the nation say, with full conviction:
We are truly free.
Comments
About Author
