Online Reporter
Fidelis Munyoro
Chief Court Reporter
Harare – based labour law expert, Adv Caleb Mucheche, has approached the High Court seeking an order to compel the Government to translate employment codes of conduct into all 14 constitutionally recognised vernacular languages and sign language.
The move, according to Adv Mucheche, is not merely a legal technicality, but a profound step towards linguistic justice for Zimbabwean workers.
Through his application, Adv Mucheche has invoked the Constitution of Zimbabwe, particularly Sections 6 and 63, which enshrine the equality of all official languages and the right to culture and language.
More than a decade since the 2013 Constitution was enacted, the Government remains in default of its obligation to make these translations, leaving millions of workers vulnerable, according to Advocate Mucheche.
“A disciplinary hearing conducted under rules the employee cannot read, challenge, or understand is an outright sham,” Adv Mucheche states in his affidavit.
The application specifically targets the Minister of Public Service, Labour, and Social Welfare, along with the Registrar of Labour, as respondents.
Adv Mucheche, the first president of Zimbabwe African Labour Society for Labour Practitioners in Zimbabwe, argues that their failure to ensure translations constitutes an act of “constitutional perfidy” and systemic discrimination against workers not fluent in English.
He describes the current system as one that “weaponises the disciplinary process against workers” and denies the majority of Zimbabwean workers meaningful access to justice.
Currently, employment codes of conduct, including the National Code of Conduct (S.I. 15 of 2006) and public service regulations, are only required to be translated into Shona and Ndebele, leaving out other official languages such as Tonga, Kalanga, and sign language.
Adv Mucheche argues that this selective approach violates the constitutional mandate of inclusivity and equality.
“This omission obliterates the right to fair labour practice, turning due process into a punitive administrative formality,” he states.
Citing Section 6 (1) of the Constitution, Adv Mucheche underscores that all 16 official languages of Zimbabwe – including sign language-enjoy equal status and must be treated as such in labour regulations.
He asserts that the Registrar of Labour’s continued certification of English-only codes is not only unlawful but also an affront to the principle of constitutional supremacy.
“This is systemic linguistic discrimination that renders the ‘equal benefit’ of the law a legal fiction,” he argues.
The application seeks declaratory and mandamus orders to compel the respondents to enforce mandatory translation of all workplace codes within three months.
Adv Mucheche further requests that the Labour Code Regulations of 1990 be amended to explicitly require translations into all official languages.
He maintains that this omission is not a mere oversight but a deliberate failure to uphold constitutional obligations.
“The failure to immediately amend the regulations to incorporate all official languages is a breach of the constitutional mandate,” he declares.
This case is a direct challenge to what Adv Mucheche calls “institutional violence” against workers who are linguistically disenfranchised.
He emphasises that the Constitution mandates the state to ensure all citizens can access legal frameworks in their own languages. The current situation, he says, creates a legal vacuum.
“The inaccessible code of conduct leaves workers legally naked and susceptible to merciless employer action.”
Adv Mucheche concludes his affidavit by urging the court to intervene, describing the issue as one of fundamental human rights.
“This is not a matter of minor administrative detail; it is a critical intervention to secure linguistic justice and the supremacy of the Constitution.”
This move is rooted in the supreme law and labour laws of Zimbabwe, which demand inclusivity and accessibility for all citizens.
More than a decade after the enactment of the 2013 Constitution of Zimbabwe, the Government has yet to fulfill its legal obligation.
The Constitution explicitly requires the Ministry to facilitate the translation of these critical documents from English into the diverse local languages of the nation. The respondents are yet to respond to the application.
