Every year, thousands of Zimbabweans import second-hand vehicles from countries such as Japan and the United Kingdom, drawn by their relative affordability, reliability, and wider selection compared to locally available options.
For many, importing a vehicle represents a significant financial commitment, often a lifetime investment.
Buyers carefully calculate the visible costs such as purchase price, shipping, insurance, import duty, and clearance fees.
However, beyond these well-known expenses lies a growing list of additional charges that are increasingly raising concern among importers.
Among the most contentious are a US$20 “radiation fee” charged at the point of entry and a variable “inspection fee” that can range from US$120 to as much as US$200 or more.
The inspection fee is typically paid in the country of export or during transit, before the vehicle reaches Zimbabwean borders.
Authorities and contracted service providers insist that these charges are standard and necessary for regulatory compliance, safety, and quality assurance.
However, a growing number of importers and industry observers are beginning to question whether the services being paid for are consistently carried out or whether, in some cases, they exist largely on paper.
Many importers say they have never seen any tangible evidence that their vehicles were inspected prior to shipment, nor do they receive detailed reports confirming such checks.
This has led to suspicions that the fees may be poorly monitored or inadequately enforced.
Newton Chagonda, an importer whose Honda Fit passed through Beitbridge Border Post via Messina, South Africa, is among those raising concerns.
Chagonda said she paid a US$200 inspection fee, but was left uncertain about what exactly she had paid for.
“We are forced to pay US$200 for inspection fees which are never clearly explained, and nobody can confirm whether the vehicle was ever inspected,” she said.
Chagonda also questioned the purpose of the radiation fee charged at the border by the Radiation Protection Authority of Zimbabwe (RPAZ).
“We just pay these amounts without seeing any inspection being carried out,” she added.
“It begins to look like a gimmick designed to extract money from importers.”
Another importer, Mavis Zinyere, recounted a similar experience.
She paid US$120 as an inspection fee for her Honda Fit imported from Japan through Chirundu Border Post via Tanzania.
Like Chagonda, she said there was no visible indication that any inspection had taken place.
“Such fees must be scrutinised to determine their real purpose,” Zinyere said.
“There is no visible evidence that vehicles are being inspected, yet we are required to pay.”
She also questioned the tendering process that brings private inspection companies into the system.
“Without that, it raises doubts about whether the process is serving the public interest,” she said.
Zinyere also highlighted what she described as an inconsistency in the application of the radiation fee.
“Some may argue that inspections are done in the country of origin, but radiation checks cannot be done there for Zimbabwean standards,” she said.
“At the border, we do not see any such inspections, yet we are charged for them.”
Investigations by Truth Diggers revealed that while Zimbabweans are paying for what are presented as legitimate regulatory safeguards, the system through which these fees are collected and administered remains opaque.
This opacity raises concerns that millions of dollars could be circulating within arrangements that lack sufficient public oversight.
At the centre of the controversy are private companies contracted to carry out pre-shipment inspections.
One such company, Cotecna, headquartered in Kenya, plays a significant role in the inspection process.
However, when approached for comment, Cotecna provided limited clarity.
Through its representative, Estellah Paulser, the company declined to directly address questions regarding the total amounts collected annually, the exact nature of inspection services provided, the locations where inspections are conducted, or the number of vehicles inspected each year.
“Please note that the requested information is available on our website,” Paulser responded.
“Should you have any further questions or require additional clarification, we kindly ask that you direct your inquiry to the Ministry of Industry and Commerce.”
A review of the company’s website revealed general information about its global services testing, inspection, and certification designed to help businesses comply with regulations but did not provide specific details relevant to Zimbabwe’s vehicle import inspection regime.
The lack of direct answers has only deepened concerns among stakeholders who argue that greater transparency is needed in a system that directly affects thousands of consumers.
Industry and Commerce minister Mangaliso Ndlovu defended the current framework, saying the government conducted extensive benchmarking before implementing the pre-shipment inspection programme.
“Prior to introducing pre-shipment inspection of vehicles, we visited other countries to ensure that inspection fees are comparable to those applied elsewhere in Africa, such as in Kenya,” Ndlovu said.
He added that such inspections are not limited to vehicles but also apply to a wide range of imported goods, including foodstuffs, electronics, machinery, and toys.
According to the minister, inspections are conducted in the country of supply, which is why the fees are collected outside Zimbabwe.
“It is standard practice for the service provider to collect fees in the country where the inspection takes place,” he said.
On the question of why the Zimbabwe Revenue Authority (Zimra) does not perform these inspections directly, Ndlovu said the agency’s role is limited to enforcing compliance at the border.
“Zimra enforces compliance and collects penalties when a vehicle arrives without a certificate of conformity (COC),” he said.
Addressing concerns about whether inspections are genuinely carried out, Ndlovu said contracted service providers are accredited and subject to regular audits.
“The service providers are accredited, meaning their operations are assessed against internationally recognised inspection standards. In addition, the ministry conducts annual technical assessments and audits,” he said.
However, the minister did not provide detailed data on the total fees collected annually, citing a lack of figures at hand.
He noted that the bulk of the fees is used to cover inspection costs in the country of supply, with a smaller portion remitted to the government.
“Twenty percent of the collected inspection fees is remitted to Treasury as royalties and directed to the Consolidated Revenue Fund,” Ndlovu said.
The remaining portion, he added, supports operational costs and the procurement of vehicles and equipment for the ministry.
Despite these explanations, questions remain. Critics argue that without publicly available data on revenue collection, inspection volumes, and enforcement outcomes, it is difficult to verify whether the system is functioning as intended.
The apparent reluctance or inability of key implementing agencies to provide detailed information has raised fears that Zimbabwe could be losing significant amounts of revenue through inefficiencies, weak oversight, or even potential abuse of the system.
What emerges is a framework that, while justified in principle, suffers from a credibility gap in practice.
Importers continue to pay mandatory fees without clear visibility of the services rendered, while institutions responsible for oversight provide limited disclosure.