By Princess Eugene Majuru
A constitution is not only defined by what it says, but by how it is interpreted. Words on paper do not enforce themselves; they are given life through courts, judges, and legal reasoning. Zimbabwe’s 2013 Constitution recognises this and provides guidance on how its provisions—especially rights—must be interpreted. Yet within this interpretive framework lies a deeper and often overlooked question: whose perspective shapes constitutional meaning?
This is where law moves from text to power.
1. The Constitutional Framework for Interpretation
The central provision is Section 46(1), which provides:
“When interpreting this Chapter, a court, tribunal, forum or body must give full effect to the rights and freedoms enshrined in this Chapter…”
Section 46(1)(c) further states:
“must take into account international law and all treaties and conventions to which Zimbabwe is a party…”
What this establishes:
- interpretation must favour rights expansion
- courts must consider international legal frameworks
- constitutional meaning is not confined to domestic text
This is a modern and outward-looking interpretive model.
2. The Role of the Courts
Section 176(1) provides:
“The Constitutional Court is the highest court in all constitutional matters…”
Implication:
- courts are the final arbiters of constitutional meaning
- interpretation is centralised in judicial authority
- legal disputes ultimately shape constitutional reality
3. The Power of Interpretation
Interpretation determines:
- how broadly or narrowly rights are applied
- how conflicts between laws are resolved
- how constitutional principles evolve over time
In effect:
the Constitution means what courts say it means in practice
4. The Influence of International Law
Section 46(1)(c) requires courts to consider international law.
This introduces:
- global human rights standards
- comparative legal approaches
- external influence on domestic constitutional meaning
The tension:
should Zimbabwe’s Constitution be interpreted through global norms or local realities?
5. The Missing Dimension: Indigenous Legal Thought
While the Constitution recognises customary law (Section 89), it does not explicitly require courts to interpret the Constitution through:
- indigenous jurisprudence
- traditional legal philosophies
- African-centred legal reasoning
This creates a gap:
interpretation is guided by international and formal legal systems, but not clearly by indigenous frameworks
6. The Structural Bias in Interpretation
Legal interpretation in Zimbabwe, as in many post-colonial states, is influenced by:
- Roman-Dutch law traditions
- common law reasoning methods
- Western legal education systems
Result:
even a progressive Constitution may be interpreted through inherited legal lenses
7. The Core Constitutional Question
This leads to a deeper issue:
If the Constitution is interpreted through external or inherited legal frameworks, can it fully reflect indigenous values and realities?
The Constitution provides guidance on what to interpret—but less clarity on how to ground that interpretation culturally.
8. Interpretation as Constitutional Power
Interpretation is not neutral. It:
- shapes the reach of rights
- defines the limits of state power
- determines how conflicts are resolved
In this sense:
interpretation is one of the most powerful, yet least visible, aspects of constitutional governance
A Constitution Guided by Principles, Shaped by Interpretation
Zimbabwe’s Constitution provides a clear framework for interpretation through Sections 46 and 176. It promotes a rights-based approach and incorporates international law into constitutional reasoning.
However, it does not fully resolve the question of interpretive perspective.
The result is a constitutional system where:
- meaning is judicially constructed
- interpretation is influenced by global and inherited legal traditions
- indigenous legal thought is recognised, but not centralised in interpretive methodology
In this sense, the Constitution is not a fixed document—it is a living framework whose meaning evolves through interpretation.
The enduring question is therefore not only what the Constitution says, but:
who interprets it—and through what lens that interpretation is made.
Until that question is fully addressed, constitutional meaning will remain both powerful and contested.
Comments
About Author
