ZIMBABWE has opened its doors to foreign investment in the hope that capital inflows will revive industry, create employment and stimulate economic growth.
In mining, construction, manufacturing and infrastructure development, foreign companies are making a visible and growing footprint.
Yet a troubling contradiction has emerged: investment is increasing, but meaningful employment for Zimbabweans is not keeping pace.
At the heart of this contradiction lies an uncomfortable reality that policymakers can no longer afford to ignore, too many foreign investors are importing their own workforce, including unskilled and semi-skilled labour, to a country burdened by unemployment.
This is not a matter of perception or isolated incidents.
Across mining operations, construction sites and industrial projects, it has become common to find foreign companies staffing entire workforces with employees brought from their home countries.
Zimbabweans are left on the margins, employed sparingly or excluded altogether, even where the work requires no specialised expertise.
In such cases, foreign investment ceases to be a vehicle for development and, instead, becomes an enclave economy operating alongside, rather than within, the national labour market.
- African mass food markets as bases for business identities
- African women in politics: Influence or just numbers?
- African women in politics: Influence or just numbers?
- Political representation alone is not enough to address global imbalances
Keep Reading
Zimbabwe’s legal framework does not prohibit the employment of foreign nationals.
The Immigration Act provides for temporary employment permits, allowing foreign workers to be lawfully employed under regulated conditions.
However, the law was never intended to enable the wholesale importation of labour for ordinary jobs.
The problem is not the absence of legislation, but the absence of a firm policy line that clearly prioritises Zimbabwean labour and limits foreign employment to genuinely scarce skills.
At present, the work permit system is largely procedural.
It focuses on documentation rather than economic justification.
Employers are not consistently required to demonstrate that Zimbabweans with equivalent skills are unavailable.
There is no publicly enforced distinction between critical expertise and replaceable labour.
This policy ambiguity has created space for abuse, allowing foreign firms to replicate their domestic labour models in Zimbabwe without regard to local employment needs.
The consequences are serious.
High unemployment, particularly among young people, is not just an economic statistic; it is a social and political risk.
When communities witness foreign nationals performing basic tasks while locals remain idle, frustration deepens and trust in economic policy erodes.
Investment that does not create jobs undermines its own legitimacy and fuels public resentment that could otherwise be avoided through clear and enforceable rules.
No credible development strategy allows foreign labour to displace local workers at the bottom of the skills ladder.
Countries that have successfully leveraged on foreign investment, from Asia to parts of Africa, have done so by enforcing skills-based migration regimes.
These systems permit foreign professionals where expertise is genuinely lacking, while reserving general and semi-skilled work for citizens.
Zimbabwe’s failure to adopt such a model is not openness; it is policy neglect.
A robust response does not require hostility towards foreign investors.
It requires clarity.
Zimbabwe needs a clearly defined skills-based work permit regime that draws an unmistakable boundary between specialised expertise and ordinary labour.
Foreign workers should be admitted only where skills shortages are proven and permits should be tied to strict localisation and skills-transfer obligations.
Anything less is an abdication of the State’s responsibility to protect its workforce.
Equally important is enforcement.
Labour laws apply to all employers, regardless of nationality, yet enforcement remains uneven.
Where foreign companies flout labour standards, underpay workers or exclude locals, sanctions must follow.
A weak enforcement environment rewards non-compliance and penalises responsible investors who follow the rules.
Regulation, properly applied, strengthens rather than weakens the investment climate.
The argument that stricter labour controls will scare away investors is unconvincing.
Serious investors seek stability, predictability and skilled local labour.
They do not fear regulation; they fear uncertainty.
Clear rules that prioritise local employment while welcoming genuine expertise send a signal that Zimbabwe is open for business, but not at the expense of its people.
At stake is the meaning of development itself.
Foreign investment should expand opportunity, not import it.
It should build local capacity, not bypass it.
If Zimbabwe allows investment to proceed without local employment, skills transfer or labour protection, then growth will remain shallow and socially fragile.
Zimbabweans are not demanding exclusion.
They are demanding fairness.
They are asking that when investment arrives, it brings jobs, skills and dignity with it.
This is neither radical nor unreasonable; it is the minimum expectation of a sovereign nation pursuing sustainable development.
The choice facing policymakers is clear.
Either Zimbabwe continues on a path where investment exists alongside unemployment or it asserts a firm, lawful and development-centred labour regime that ensures foreign capital works for national progress.
Investment without jobs is not development.
It is time for Zimbabwe’s policies to reflect that truth.
