Online Reporter
Fidelis Munyoro
Chief Court Reporter
EMPLOYMENT codes of conduct must now be translated within three months into all 14 constitutionally recognised vernacular languages, the High Court has ordered the Ministry of Public Service, Labour, and Social Welfare and the Registrar of Labour, ensuring alignment with the 2013 Constitution.
Justice Regis Dembure last week granted the application filed by labour law expert Advocate Caleb Mucheche.
The court declared the systemic failure to translate employment codes into all official languages a breach of constitutional provisions, including the equality of official languages and workers’ rights.
The order affects employment guidelines such as the National Code of Conduct and workplace regulations governing public service, health, judiciary, military, prisons and state security.
Currently, these codes are translated only into Shona and Ndebele, excluding other official languages like Tonga, Kalanga, San and sign language.
The court ruled that the Registrar of Labour must enforce the translation of all existing and new employment codes and mandated immediate legislative amendments to ensure inclusivity.
The failure to implement these translations was found to violate constitutional sections that guarantee equality, cultural rights and access to justice.
Advocate Mucheche argued that the current system excludes workers not fluent in English, compromising their access to fair labour practices.
He cited the Constitution’s requirement that all 16 official languages enjoy equal status, a condition the Government has failed to meet for over a decade. The 16 are the 14 vernacular languages, English and sign language.
The respondents, including the Minister of Public Service, Labour, and Social Welfare, opposed the application. They argued that the claims were legally flawed, speculative and without evidence of actual harm. They maintained that translation responsibilities lie with employers or National Employment Councils, not the Government.
The respondents also asserted that language rights under the Constitution must be progressively realised and are not subject to immediate judicial enforcement.
They requested the dismissal of the application, arguing it lacked merit and did not establish a clear legal right.
The court, however, rejected these arguments and ruled that the Government had a constitutional duty to end linguistic exclusion in workplace governance.
The decision obliges the state to ensure equal benefit of the law for all workers, regardless of language.
