Legal Compliance for NGOs in Zimbabwe

Non-Governmental Organisations (“NGOs”) in Zimbabwe play an important role in supporting development, social cohesion, serving the public good and providing accountability mechanisms that contribute to improved governance and promoting democracy and the respect for the rule of law.

NGOs in Zimbabwe generally do not operate in the same way as other corporate organisations i.e., companies which are established for profit. NGOs are non-profit organisations. It is therefore critical for NGOs in Zimbabwe to adhere to good corporate governance practices and regularly conduct legal compliance or legal audits. This includes the following key pillars of compliance:

• Data Protection Compliance;

• Labour & Employment Compliance;

• Financial Compliance;

• Statutory & Regulatory Compliance; and

• Tax and Revenue Compliance.

NGOs are not exempt from adhering to the laws of the country and must strictly operate within the relevant legislation that governs them to maintain public trust, secure funding, and ensure they stay within the confines of the law. The Board of an NGO in Zimbabwe is ultimately responsible for legal compliance and ensuring that the organisation is not in violation of the law.

The Supreme Court in Mukurazita v Young Africa Development SC 54-25 at page 10-11 emphasized this institutional responsibility, holding that:

“It is common cause therefore, that the appellant had declared her interest and that the purchases now alleged to constitute conflict of interest were in fact approved by the respondent’s Board. The Board knew, or ought to have known, that approval of such purchases, under circumstances where the appellant had openly disclosed her interest, would be in breach of EU regulations on conflict of interest. The Board ought to have appreciated the consequences of that breach, namely that the whole EU grant would be recalled and, in addition, any moneys expended on such purchases were required to be required to the EU. With that knowledge and awareness, the Board nonetheless proceeded to approve and authorize the purchases which are the subject of this matter. The respondent now seeks to shift the blame to its director, when its board in fact had approved the tainted transactions. the blame for the drastic actions taken by the EU must be shoulder by the board, representing the respondent. In short, it is the respondent, as an organisation and through its Board that must accept responsibility for the consequences of its actions. Singling out its director or any other office does not absolve the respondent.”