FOR years, I have watched men and women file in and out of maintenance courts across Zimbabwe — some seeking justice, others running from it. I have seen mothers desperate for child support and fathers bewildered by the speed with which orders are issued against them.
As a researcher and social justice advocate, one question has haunted me: can a person be deprived of liberty on the basis of a presumption rather than proof?
This question lies at the heart of my petition to the Parliament of Zimbabwe, calling for urgent amendment to the Maintenance Act [Chapter 5:09].
Where the law fails the Constitution
The Maintenance Act was designed to protect dependants — especially children — from neglect and destitution. Under section 4, when a person is alleged to have failed or neglected to maintain a child, the maintenance officer may summon them to court to show cause why an order should not be made.
In principle, that sounds fair. But in practice, it often isn’t.
The court frequently relies on presumptions of paternity, especially where the respondent was once married to or in a relationship with the mother. At times, the mere admission of sexual relations is treated as sufficient proof of paternity. The problem arises when such a presumption becomes the basis of an enforceable court order — one that carries the ultimate sanction of imprisonment if not obeyed.
In other words, a man can be jailed for defaulting on a maintenance order that was issued without conclusive proof that he is the father of the child.
- In Full: eighteenth post-cabinet press briefing June 28, 2022
- Harvest hay to prevent veldfires: Ema
- Pomp and fanfare at Pastor Mukariri album launch
- Car hire caught in sungura euphoria
Keep Reading
To me, that offends the very spirit of the Constitution of Zimbabwe (2013), which guarantees in section 49 the right to liberty and in section 70 the right of every accused person to be presumed innocent until proven guilty.
While maintenance proceedings are technically civil in nature, they carry criminal consequences. That makes the current system constitutionally fragile — and, in some cases, profoundly unjust.
Why I petitioned Parliament
In July 2025, I submitted a petition to the Parliament of Zimbabwe urging lawmakers to review and amend the Maintenance Act. My petition was not an attack on mothers or children; it was a call for fairness and procedural justice.
During my presentation before the Parliamentary Portfolio Committee on Justice, Legal and Parliamentary Affairs, I proposed several key reforms: Clear legal safeguards ensuring that imprisonment for default cannot occur unless paternity has been conclusively established.
Access to State-funded DNA testing to protect the rights of low-income respondents.
Legislative alignment of the Maintenance Act with sections 49 and 70 of the Constitution. The Portfolio Committee on Justice, Legal and Parliamentary Affairs will look into the issue. This is an encouraging step, but much remains to be done.
Balancing rights and responsibilities
I am fully aware of the obligation that every child has the right to parental care and maintenance. I support that right wholeheartedly.
But justice for the child must not come at the expense of injustice for the parent. When courts act on assumption rather than evidence, the integrity of the justice system suffers.
We can — and must — protect both: the child’s right to be supported and the father’s right to be treated fairly.
I often say that if the State can afford to imprison a man for non-payment, then it can afford to verify whether that man is indeed the father. Truth should never be optional in matters of liberty.
A call for justice and reform
Zimbabwe stands at a crossroads. Our Constitution is one of the most progressive in Africa, but our family law still carries traces of an older, less equitable system.
I believe that reforming the Maintenance Act is not about weakening child protection — it is about strengthening constitutional integrity. It is about ensuring that the law reflects both compassion and correctness, both duty and dignity.
Until Parliament acts or the courts pronounce a binding judgment, many men will continue to live under the weight of orders issued on presumption. Some will comply out of fear; others will resist and face imprisonment. And in each case, the question remains: is justice being done — or merely being done quickly?
That is why I will continue to advocate for reform, because no one should lose their freedom on a presumption.
