By Aldridge Dzvene
In a bold and long-awaited move to align Zimbabwe’s extractive sector with global best practices, the Government of Zimbabwe has tabled the Mines and Minerals Bill, a legislative overhaul aimed at replacing the outdated Mines and Minerals Act [Chapter 21:05]. The Bill is designed to modernize the mining legal framework, foster investment, ensure environmental sustainability, and enhance transparency, while cautiously navigating the sensitive terrain of land rights, national ownership, and foreign investment.
At the core of the Bill is a striking attempt to recalibrate the country’s mining governance structure into one that embraces 21st-century legal and technological innovations, introduces stronger institutional oversight, and seeks a more equitable resource economy. The newly proposed Mining Cadastre Registry exemplifies this shift, establishing a digital, definitive, and transparent record of mining rights that demands beneficial ownership disclosures and discourages corruption and speculation.
But modernization is only one leg of this policy reform. The Bill also injects an assertive environmental conscience into Zimbabwe’s mining landscape. By making Environmental Impact Assessments (EIAs) a mandatory prerequisite before any mining activity commences, the law seeks to mitigate the country’s worsening cases of environmental degradation, often blamed on small-scale, unregulated, or politically protected mining operations.
Furthermore, the proposed legislation introduces the concept of strategic minerals, a categorization that allows the State to ring-fence certain minerals for national interest, particularly in securing revenue and ensuring their sustainable exploitation. However, legal experts and stakeholders have cautioned that this provision, if not carefully and constitutionally administered, could jeopardize existing mining rights and destabilize investor confidence. To address this, the Bill proposes a right of appeal for mining title holders should their rights be affected by strategic mineral classifications, a move seen as balancing state interest with due process.
Another noteworthy reform is the Bill’s adoption of the “use it or lose it” principle. Mining locations that remain undeveloped or inactive will now be liable to forfeiture after inspections and compliance checks. This aims to curb speculative hoarding of mining claims, some of which have remained dormant for decades, thereby unlocking new opportunities for genuine investors. The provision for the redevelopment or tribute of tailings dumps also signals the state’s growing urgency to maximise resource value from past mining residues.
In terms of institutional architecture, the Mining Affairs Board (MAB) is set for an upgrade. The Bill stipulates a broader mandate, improved transparency, and legal competence within the board’s composition. Monthly meetings instead of bi-monthly ones are also recommended to speed up regulatory decision-making, while new rules require MAB to provide notice and invite representations before any extraction of samples or administrative court referrals.
From a commercial standpoint, the Bill introduces Exclusive Prospecting Licences (EPLs) and Exploration Licences (EELs). Yet stakeholders have already flagged the initially proposed 12-month duration for EPLs as unrealistic, particularly given the costs and complexity of geological surveys, community consultations, and environmental assessments. In response, analysts propose extending this timeframe to 36 months to reflect operational realities and attract credible long-term investment.
The Bill’s reaffirmation of landholder rights, particularly their ability to lodge land use schemes that restrict mining, has also been praised. However, this has triggered debates around the potential clash with national interests in accessing strategic minerals. Section 143(5), for instance, empowers the Provincial Mining Director to approve such schemes but lacks clear criteria on strategic mineral considerations. Analysts have urged for statutory clarity that protects both landholder autonomy and the nation’s mineral development agenda.
One of the most progressive but potentially controversial provisions lies in the local ownership requirement, particularly in exploration. By implicitly reintroducing a form of indigenization, despite the “Zimbabwe is Open for Business” narrative, the Bill risks unsettling foreign investor sentiment. Critics argue that applying majority shareholding demands at the high-risk, capital-intensive exploration phase could stifle vital foreign direct investment. Clear definitions and flexible models have been recommended to address this.
The Mining Industry Environmental Protection Fund (MIEPF) is another positive introduction, aimed at ensuring rehabilitation of mining sites and holding miners accountable for environmental damage. Meanwhile, frameworks for compensation, transfer of rights, and expropriation have also been updated to reflect modern administrative justice principles.
In addition, the Bill touches on town land mining, auctioning of mining rights, and penalties for non-compliance, further tightening regulation across the spectrum.
Ultimately, the Mines and Minerals Bill reflects a significant, if ambitious, attempt by the Zimbabwean government to reset the country’s mining sector on a path of sustainability, legality, and national benefit. But its success will depend on faithful implementation, consultative enforcement, and a delicate balancing act between local empowerment, environmental stewardship, and investor confidence.
If passed with thoughtful amendments, this Bill could become a cornerstone of Zimbabwe’s mineral-driven economic recovery. If rushed or politicized, however, it could risk repeating past mistakes under a more modern veil.
