JPTi Brings Zimbabwe Human Rights Commission Removal Case Before the United Nations
- 3 hours ago
- 27 min read
Geneva, 27 April 2026 – Justice pour Tous Internationale (JPTi) has submitted a formal human rights complaint to the United Nations Special Procedures and the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights concerning the situation of Ms. Fungayi Jessie Majome, a Zimbabwean national and legal practitioner who was unlawfully removed from her position as Chairperson of the Zimbabwe Human Rights Commission (ZHRC), Zimbabwe’s constitutionally established National Human Rights Institution.
The complaint was addressed to the relevant United Nations Special Procedures mandate holders, including Ms. Andrea Bolaños Vargas, Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights defenders; Ms. Irene Khan, Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression; Ms. Margaret Satterthwaite, Special Rapporteur on the independence of judges and lawyers; and Ms. Gina Romero, Special Rapporteur on the rights to freedom of peaceful assembly and of association. It was also submitted to Mr. Volker Türk, United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights; Mr. George Katrougalos, Chair of the Coordination Committee of Special Procedures; Ms. Amina Bouayach, Chairperson of the Global Alliance of National Human Rights Institutions (GANHRI); Ms. Blanca Izaguirre, Chairperson of the GANHRI Sub-Committee on Accreditation; and Ambassador Sidharto Reza Suryodipuro, President of the Human Rights Council.
The complaint concerns an executive measure taken by the President of Zimbabwe on 10 April 2026 and publicly presented as a “reassignment” of Ms. Majome from the ZHRC to the Public Service Commission. JPTi submits that this measure constituted, in substance and effect, her removal from office. It was carried out outside the constitutional framework governing the tenure and removal of members of independent commissions, without the initiation of any tribunal process, without any publicly advanced lawful ground for removal, and without due process guarantees.
The measure followed the lawful and independent exercise by the ZHRC, under Ms. Majome’s leadership, of its constitutional mandate to protect and promote human rights. On 7 April 2026, the ZHRC issued a public statement and legal analysis concerning the public hearings on the Constitution of Zimbabwe Amendment Bill No. 3 of 2026, identifying serious human rights concerns, including restrictions on participation, intimidation of dissenting voices, harassment, physical attacks, and patterns of controlled participation. Three days later, Ms. Majome was removed, in substance and effect, from her position as Chairperson through a measure presented as a “reassignment,” notwithstanding the absence of any constitutional or other applicable legal basis under Zimbabwean law permitting such a measure.
JPTi’s complaint raises serious concerns that the measure constituted a reprisal against Ms. Majome for the legitimate exercise of her mandate as Chairperson of a National Human Rights Institution. It also highlights broader systemic concerns. The harm is not merely personal. It affects the independence, credibility, and effective functioning of the ZHRC, undermines the security of tenure of members of Chapter 12 institutions, and risks deterring commissioners, public oversight actors, civil society organisations, journalists, and human rights defenders from acting independently in matters of public importance.
The complaint further submits that the measure is inconsistent with Zimbabwe’s obligations under international human rights law, including the obligation to protect human rights defenders from reprisals, the rights to freedom of expression and participation in public affairs under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and the obligation to maintain an independent National Human Rights Institution in accordance with the Principles relating to the Status of National Institutions, known as the Paris Principles, adopted by the United Nations General Assembly in Resolution 48/134 of 20 December 1993.
JPTi has requested urgent engagement by the relevant Special Procedures mandate holders and the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, coordinated where appropriate with the Coordination Committee of Special Procedures, GANHRI, and the GANHRI Sub-Committee on Accreditation. JPTi has further requested that such engagement call upon the Government of Zimbabwe to rescind the decision of 10 April 2026, restore Ms. Majome to the full and unhindered exercise of her functions, duties, powers, and privileges as Chairperson of the ZHRC, guarantee her physical and professional safety, and refrain from any further acts of intimidation, harassment, retaliation, or interference with the functioning, composition, leadership, or tenure of the ZHRC.
JPTi has also invited the relevant United Nations mechanisms to consider public-facing action, including, where appropriate, a joint public statement or press release, or coordinated separate public statements, underscoring the importance of protecting National Human Rights Institutions from executive interference, safeguarding human rights defenders from reprisals, upholding the Paris Principles, and ensuring the restoration of the independence and proper functioning of the Zimbabwe Human Rights Commission.
COMPLAINT TO THE UNITED NATIONS SPECIAL PROCEDURES AND THE UNITED NATIONS HIGH COMMISSIONER FOR HUMAN RIGHTS
27 April 2026
VICTIM’S PROFILE
This complaint is submitted on behalf of Ms. Fungayi Jessie Majome, a Zimbabwean national and legal practitioner, who was appointed Chairperson of the Zimbabwe Human Rights Commission on 20 March 2024 in terms of section 242(1)(a) of the Constitution of Zimbabwe and who remained in office until 10 April 2026, when she was purportedly “reassigned” through measures that are the subject of the present complaint and are alleged to be inconsistent with constitutional and international standards governing the independence of National Human Rights Institutions.
Ms. Majome held a senior constitutional office within the Zimbabwe Human Rights Commission, a Chapter 12 institution established under sections 242 and 243 of the Constitution of Zimbabwe. The Commission is mandated to promote, protect, and monitor human rights, including through the investigation of complaints, the conduct of public inquiries, the monitoring of State compliance with constitutional and international human rights obligations, and the making of recommendations to Parliament and Government on measures necessary to secure the protection of fundamental rights and freedoms.
In her capacity as Chairperson, Ms. Majome exercised responsibilities of significant public importance, including oversight of national processes affecting democratic governance, public participation, and the enjoyment of fundamental freedoms. Her role required engagement with State institutions, civil society actors, and international stakeholders, as well as the public communication of findings relating to human rights compliance.
In the context of the present complaint, Ms. Majome acted within the scope of her constitutional mandate when the Zimbabwe Human Rights Commission monitored the public hearings relating to the Constitution of Zimbabwe Amendment (No. 3) Bill, 2026, and subsequently issued a public statement on 7 April 2026 identifying serious human rights concerns arising from that process. The issuance of that statement constituted a legitimate exercise of the Commission’s functions and falls within the scope of activities protected under the United Nations Declaration on Human Rights Defenders.
On 10 April 2026, Ms. Majome was prevented from continuing to exercise her functions as Chairperson through an executive measure publicly described as a “reassignment” to the Public Service Commission. That measure was taken without the initiation of any formal removal proceedings and outside the constitutional framework governing the tenure of members of independent commissions.
The consequences of that measure are not limited to the interruption of her tenure in a constitutionally independent institution. In the prevailing environment of shrinking civic space, growing pressure on dissenting voices, and documented intimidation of persons who publicly criticise State conduct, the circumstances of her removal give rise to serious concerns regarding her personal security, professional integrity, dignity, and overall well-being.
As the holder of a senior constitutional office who publicly communicated findings on alleged human rights violations in a politically sensitive context, Ms. Majome is exposed to heightened risks of retaliation, including reputational attacks, professional marginalisation, intimidation, and other forms of pressure. The abrupt timing of the measure, occurring only three days after the Commission’s critical public statement, gives rise to serious concern that she has been singled out for adverse treatment because of the faithful and independent exercise of her mandate.
In these circumstances, Ms. Majome qualifies as a human rights defender within the meaning of the United Nations Declaration on the Right and Responsibility of Individuals, Groups and Organs of Society to Promote and Protect Universally Recognized Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. Her actions fall squarely within protected activities, including the promotion of human rights, the monitoring and reporting of violations, and engagement in public affairs relating to the protection of fundamental freedoms.
Accordingly, the present case raises serious concerns regarding reprisals against Ms. Majome for the legitimate exercise of her functions, including risks affecting her safety, dignity, and ability to continue engaging in human rights work. Although Ms. Majome is the direct victim of the measure at issue, the resulting harm is not merely personal. It also affects the wider public interest in the independence, credibility, and effective functioning of the Zimbabwe Human Rights Commission as Zimbabwe’s National Human Rights Institution. The present case further raises broader concerns regarding the protection of persons serving within National Human Rights Institutions and the safeguards required to ensure that they are able to carry out their mandates independently and without fear of retaliation.
I. DETAILED FACTUAL BACKGROUND
The present complaint arises within a broader national context characterised by persistent tension between formal constitutional guarantees and their implementation in practice. While the Constitution of Zimbabwe provides for the protection of fundamental rights and the establishment of independent oversight institutions, recent developments indicate increasing restrictions on civic space, growing pressure on dissenting voices, and broader challenges to democratic governance and the rule of law. The present complaint therefore concerns not only the retaliatory harm suffered by Ms. Majome personally, but also a broader public and systemic injury to the independence, credibility, and effective functioning of Zimbabwe’s National Human Rights Institution and, by extension, to the constitutional framework of democratic oversight.
In recent years, Zimbabwe has experienced a tightening of the regulatory and operational environment for civil society. On 11 April 2025, the Private Voluntary Organisations (Amendment) Act (Act No. 1 of 2025) was enacted, significantly expanding State control over non-governmental organisations. The legislation broadened the categories of entities subject to regulation and conferred extensive discretionary powers on executive authorities, including powers relating to registration, funding oversight, and sanctions for non-compliance or engagement in activities characterised as political. In practice, these measures have raised serious concerns regarding their compatibility with the right to freedom of association and have contributed to a climate of increased scrutiny and pressure on civil society actors.
This development must be considered alongside the continued use of laws regulating public order and security, including the Maintenance of Peace and Order Act, in ways that have raised concerns regarding arbitrary arrests, restrictions on peaceful assembly, and limitations on freedom of expression. The cumulative effect of these developments has contributed to a shrinking civic space, marked by harassment, intimidation, and pressure targeting journalists, human rights defenders, opposition figures, and civil society organisations, with a corresponding chilling effect on public debate and peaceful dissent.
Within this broader context, the Constitution of Zimbabwe Amendment (No. 3) Bill, 2026 (CAB 3), became a particularly contentious national issue. The Bill was gazetted on 16 February 2026, thereby triggering a public consultation process. It proposed substantial changes to Zimbabwe’s constitutional framework, including the extension of presidential, parliamentary, and local authority terms from five to seven years, changes to the method of electing the President, the expansion of presidential appointment powers within the Senate, and institutional reforms affecting existing constitutional commissions.
The Bill generated widespread concern and opposition from civil society organisations, opposition political actors, religious groups, and members of the public. Reports emerging during the consultation period, particularly between 30 March and 4 April 2026, indicated that the public hearings were accompanied by restrictions on participation, intimidation of dissenting voices, and incidents of coercion and violence. These developments raised serious questions regarding the integrity of the consultation process and the extent to which it complied with constitutional and international standards governing inclusive and participatory public affairs.
In this context, the Zimbabwe Human Rights Commission, a Chapter 12 independent institution established under section 242 of the Constitution and mandated under section 243 to promote, protect, and monitor human rights, undertook a nationwide monitoring exercise of the CAB 3 public hearings. The Commission deployed teams across all provinces to observe the conduct of the consultations and to assess compliance with human rights standards, including the rights to freedom of expression, participation in public affairs, equality, and non-discrimination.
On 7 April 2026, the ZHRC issued a public statement presenting its findings. The Commission confirmed that the hearings were widely attended, but documented serious concerns affecting their integrity. These included the use of venues that were inadequate relative to turnout, resulting in the exclusion of many participants; harassment and intimidation of individuals expressing dissenting views; and, in some instances, physical violence against those opposing the proposed amendments. The Commission further reported that, in certain locations, participation was subject to control mechanisms, including vetting at entry points and the presence of individuals enforcing restrictions, notably in Mashonaland West, where individuals carrying whips were reported to have regulated access.
The ZHRC concluded that these practices constituted violations of multiple constitutional rights, including freedom of expression, freedom of conscience, human dignity, personal security, and equality before the law. It further emphasised that such conduct undermined participatory democracy and fell short of Zimbabwe’s constitutional and international human rights obligations. The issuance of this statement represented a direct exercise of the Commission’s constitutional mandate and a legitimate act of public reporting on matters of significant public interest.
On 10 April 2026, three days after the publication of the ZHRC’s findings, the Government of Zimbabwe, through the Chief Secretary to the President and Cabinet, publicly announced the immediate “reassignment” of Ms. Majome from her position as Chairperson of the ZHRC to a position within the Public Service Commission. The measure was implemented with immediate effect, without prior consultation, without the initiation of any formal proceedings, and without reference to the constitutional procedures governing the removal of members of independent commissions.
The timing and circumstances of this action are central to the present complaint. The purported reassignment occurred in direct temporal proximity to the ZHRC’s public reporting on alleged human rights violations during a politically sensitive constitutional process. No allegations of misconduct, incapacity, or any other constitutionally recognised ground for removal were publicly advanced, and no tribunal process was initiated, as required under section 237 of the Constitution. In effect, the reassignment operated as an immediate removal from office without due process, thereby preventing Ms. Majome from continuing to perform her functions as Chairperson of a constitutionally independent oversight body.
On 13 April 2026, the Network of African National Human Rights Institutions (NANHRI) issued a public statement expressing grave concern regarding the measure at issue. NANHRI emphasised that the action followed closely upon the Commission’s critical reporting and warned that it posed a serious threat to the independence of the ZHRC and to the broader constitutional order. It further underscored that members of independent commissions are entitled to security of tenure and that any removal must comply with established legal procedures, thereby indicating that the purported reassignment appeared to circumvent those safeguards.
The implications of the measure extend beyond the victim herself. As a direct consequence of the executive action of 10 April 2026, Ms. Majome was prevented from continuing to exercise her mandate as Chairperson, and the independence of the ZHRC was called into question at a moment of acute public importance. The Commission currently holds “A status” accreditation with the Global Alliance of National Human Rights Institutions (GANHRI), reflecting formal compliance with the Paris Principles, including guarantees of independence and security of tenure.
At the international level, the matter has prompted scrutiny by the Sub-Committee on Accreditation of GANHRI, which assesses compliance with the Paris Principles, including with respect to independence, stability of tenure, and the real and perceived independence of National Human Rights Institutions. The matter falls for consideration during the SCA’s 47th session, taking place from 20 April to 1 May 2026. Any adverse finding may have significant implications for the standing and functioning of the ZHRC within the international human rights system. At the same time, such consequences would not remedy the underlying violation, but rather underscore the seriousness of the executive interference and the risk of progressive institutional weakening.
Taken together, the sequence of events described above, namely the adoption of restrictive measures affecting civic space, the conduct of a contested constitutional reform process, the ZHRC’s public reporting on human rights concerns arising from that process, and the immediate removal, in substance and effect, of its Chairperson without due process, demonstrates a pattern of interference with independent oversight. In this context, the action against Ms. Majome is both individually retaliatory and systemically corrosive. It not only targeted Ms. Majome for the legitimate exercise of a constitutional human rights mandate, but also impaired the independence of the ZHRC, undermined public confidence in Chapter 12 institutions, and signalled to other commissioners and oversight actors that independent action on matters of public importance may attract executive sanction. The harm arising from the measure is therefore systemic and public, not merely personal.
II. SECURITY OF TENURE AND UNLAWFUL REMOVAL OF CHAIRPERSON OF THE ZIMBABWE HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION (ZHRC)
Ms. Fungayi Jessie Majome was appointed Chairperson of the Zimbabwe Human Rights Commission on 20 March 2024 in terms of section 242(1)(a) of the Constitution of Zimbabwe. Her office was not an ordinary administrative posting, but a constitutionally protected position within a Chapter 12 independent institution. In accordance with the Zimbabwe Human Rights Commission Act [Chapter 10:30], First Schedule, paragraph 3(1), a Commissioner, including the Chairperson, holds office for a term of five years and is eligible for re-appointment for one further term of five years. The fixed term of office is an essential component of the independence of the Commission and is designed to protect its members from arbitrary or politically motivated interference. The protection of tenure is not conferred for the private benefit of the office-holder alone. It exists to protect the public interest in an independent Commission capable of carrying out its mandate without executive pressure or fear of retaliation.
That protection is expressly reinforced by section 237 of the Constitution, which applies to members of independent commissions established under Chapter 12. Under that provision, a member of such a commission may be removed from office only on limited grounds, namely inability to perform the functions of office because of infirmity of body or mind, gross misconduct, or gross incompetence. The Constitution further requires that removal take place only through the prescribed process, namely the appointment of an independent tribunal on the recommendation of the Judicial Service Commission, with action by the President only upon the recommendation of that tribunal. These safeguards are integral to the constitutional guarantee of independence set out in section 235, under which independent commissions are not subject to the direction or control of anyone and must exercise their functions without fear, favour, or prejudice.
Neither the Constitution nor the Zimbabwe Human Rights Commission Act provides for the “reassignment” of the Chairperson of the ZHRC to another office as a lawful means of interrupting or terminating the tenure attached to that constitutional position. The official reliance on section 202(1)(b) of the Constitution does not alter this conclusion. That provision concerns appointments within the Public Service Commission and does not provide a lawful basis for the removal, transfer, or redeployment of a serving member of an independent Chapter 12 institution. Where the effect of an executive measure is to deprive a Commissioner of office within an independent commission, that measure must comply strictly with section 237 and the related constitutional safeguards. It cannot be rendered lawful merely by being described as a “reassignment.”
On 10 April 2026, through a public statement issued by the Chief Secretary to the President and Cabinet, the President purported to “reassign” Ms. Majome from her position as Chairperson of the Zimbabwe Human Rights Commission to the Public Service Commission with immediate effect. In substance and effect, this amounted to her removal from office. No tribunal was appointed. No recommendation for her removal was made by any tribunal. No allegation of gross misconduct, gross incompetence, or incapacity was formally advanced against her. Before the issuance of the official statement, she had not tendered a written resignation. No reasons were publicly given beyond a bare reference to section 202(1)(b). The measure at issue therefore constituted a de facto removal from office carried out in circumvention of the constitutional procedures governing the tenure of members of independent commissions.
The timing of the measure reinforces that conclusion. The executive action was taken only three days after the ZHRC, under Ms. Majome’s leadership, issued its public statement of 7 April 2026 concerning the conduct of the CAB 3 public hearings, in which it raised concerns regarding intimidation, exclusion, harassment, assaults on dissenting participants, and patterns of controlled participation. At the time the measure was taken, the Commission had been actively exercising its constitutional mandate under section 243 to monitor, promote, and protect human rights, including through public reporting on matters of significant national importance. In these circumstances, the temporal proximity and surrounding context give rise to a strong and credible inference that the purported reassignment was not a neutral administrative measure, but a retaliatory response to the lawful and independent exercise of the Commission’s mandate.
The constitutional implications are direct and serious. By purporting to achieve through “reassignment” what the Constitution permits only through a strictly regulated removal process, the President failed to comply with the constitutional safeguards governing the tenure of members of independent commissions. The executive action also raises concern under section 90(1) of the Constitution, which requires the President to uphold, defend, obey, and respect the Constitution and to ensure that it is faithfully observed. If executive action can interrupt the tenure of the Chairperson of a Chapter 12 institution outside the procedures prescribed by section 237, the constitutional guarantee of security of tenure is rendered illusory.
The unlawfulness of the measure also engages Zimbabwe’s international obligations. The Principles relating to the Status of National Institutions, endorsed by the United Nations General Assembly in resolution 48/134 and reaffirmed by the Human Rights Council in its resolutions on National Human Rights Institutions, require guarantees of independence, including stability and security of tenure. Those guarantees are further elaborated in the General Observations of the Sub-Committee on Accreditation, which make clear that the real and perceived independence of a National Human Rights Institution is undermined where members may be removed without an independent and transparent process grounded in law. The removal of the Chairperson of the ZHRC without lawful grounds and without due process is therefore incompatible with Zimbabwe’s obligation to maintain an independent National Human Rights Institution in compliance with the Paris Principles.
The measure also has a broader deterrent effect. The removal, in substance and effect, of the Chairperson of the ZHRC immediately after the Commission publicly reported on human rights concerns sends a coercive message to other commissioners, public oversight bodies, civil society actors, and human rights defenders that the faithful and independent discharge of public mandates may lead to executive sanction. In the prevailing environment of shrinking civic space and heightened pressure on dissenting voices, such action generates a foreseeable chilling effect on the exercise of human rights functions and democratic oversight.
Accordingly, the purported reassignment of Ms. Majome to the Public Service Commission must be understood, in law and in fact, as an unlawful removal from office in violation of section 237 of the Constitution, the protected tenure guaranteed under the Zimbabwe Human Rights Commission Act, the constitutional duty imposed by section 90(1), and Zimbabwe’s international obligations to protect the independence and stability of tenure of National Human Rights Institutions in line with the Paris Principles. The circumstances further support the conclusion that the measure was retaliatory and designed to punish and deter the independent exercise of the Zimbabwe Human Rights Commission’s constitutional mandate.
III. RELATED DOMESTIC PROCEEDINGS, SMEAR CAMPAIGN, AND COMPLEMENTARITY OF THE UN INTERVENTION
Following the removal of Ms. Majome, a related public-interest constitutional challenge has been instituted domestically to contest the legality of the purported “reassignment” and to seek relief directed towards the restoration of constitutional compliance. The domestic proceedings, which are annexed to the present complaint, challenge the measure at issue as inconsistent with the constitutional safeguards governing the tenure and removal of members of Chapter 12 institutions. Without reproducing all the arguments advanced in those proceedings, their existence confirms that the legality of the measure at issue is already the subject of serious constitutional contestation within Zimbabwe itself.
The significance of these related domestic proceedings lies not only in the fact that they challenge the legality of the measure at issue, but also in what they reveal about the nature of the harm. The present matter is not understood domestically as a private employment dispute or a merely personal grievance affecting Ms. Majome alone. Rather, it is understood as a public constitutional wrong affecting the integrity of a Chapter 12 institution, the security of tenure of those who serve within it, and the wider public interest in the continued independence and effectiveness of the Zimbabwe Human Rights Commission. In that sense, the harm arising from the measure at issue is systemic and public, not merely personal.
The existence of related domestic proceedings does not diminish the need for engagement by the United Nations Special Procedures. The present complaint is directed not only to questions of domestic constitutional compliance, but also to distinct issues of international concern, including reprisals against a human rights defender, interference with the independence of a National Human Rights Institution, the chilling effect of retaliatory executive action on other commissioners and oversight actors, and Zimbabwe’s obligations under international human rights law and the Paris Principles. The United Nations intervention sought in this complaint is therefore complementary to, and not duplicative of, domestic legal processes.
The developments following the ZHRC’s public statement of 7 April 2026 and the removal of Ms. Majome also indicate the emergence of a hostile environment directed at the Commission and its leadership. They form part of a broader pattern of pressure surrounding the ZHRC’s intervention on the CAB 3 process. The combination of the executive action of 10 April 2026, public attacks on the Commission’s credibility, attempts to challenge its legality after it spoke out, and pressure directed at its leadership contributes to an atmosphere of intimidation and institutional destabilisation. This context is directly relevant to the assessment of reprisals and to the need for protective international attention.
The present complaint is therefore submitted on the understanding that domestic proceedings, hostile domestic reactions, and international scrutiny all form part of the same unfolding situation. The role of the Special Procedures is not to replace domestic adjudication, but to address the international human rights dimensions of the case, to assist in preventing further reprisals, and to reinforce the requirement that the Zimbabwe Human Rights Commission be able to function independently and in compliance with the standards applicable to National Human Rights Institutions.
IV. REPRISALS, CUMULATIVE CHILLING EFFECT, AND THE CONTINUING NEED FOR UNITED NATIONS INTERVENTION
The present case is not a routine dispute concerning appointment or tenure. It is individually retaliatory because the measure at issue was directed at Ms. Majome in direct temporal and factual proximity to the lawful and independent exercise of her constitutional mandate. It is also systemically corrosive because, if allowed to stand, it would normalise executive circumvention of the constitutional safeguards protecting the tenure of members of independent commissions, weaken the real and perceived independence of the Zimbabwe Human Rights Commission, and deter other commissioners and oversight actors from acting independently in matters of public importance.
That conclusion is reinforced by the broader environment in which the executive action occurred. As set out above, the ZHRC’s public reporting on a politically sensitive constitutional process was followed not only by the abrupt interruption of Ms. Majome’s tenure, but also by efforts to discredit the Commission and undermine confidence in its leadership. In this context, the removal of the Chairperson cannot be viewed in isolation. Rather, it forms part of a broader pattern of pressure directed at an institution that had exercised its mandate in a manner perceived as inconvenient to the executive.
The implications of such action extend far beyond the individual victim. The removal, in substance and effect, of the Chairperson of the ZHRC immediately after the Commission publicly identified human rights concerns sends a coercive signal to other commissioners, members of Chapter 12 institutions, public oversight bodies, civil society actors, journalists, and human rights defenders that independent reporting on matters of public importance may result in adverse consequences. This creates a cumulative chilling effect on the exercise of constitutional and human rights functions. It encourages self-censorship, discourages principled institutional action, and undermines the willingness of oversight actors to speak publicly and independently on politically sensitive issues.
The chilling effect is particularly acute in the context of a National Human Rights Institution. The effectiveness of such an institution depends not only on its formal legal status, but also on the confidence of its members that they may carry out their functions without fear of retaliation, reassignment, public attack, or loss of tenure. If the leadership of an NHRI may be removed immediately after the institution has spoken critically on human rights matters, the real and perceived independence of the institution is gravely compromised. In such circumstances, the institutional damage is not confined to one office-holder, but affects the capacity of the Commission as a whole to function as a credible and effective protector of rights.
The present case also raises distinct concerns under the international framework protecting human rights defenders. Ms. Majome’s conduct falls squarely within protected activity, namely monitoring alleged violations, reporting publicly on human rights concerns, and acting to uphold constitutional and international standards in a matter of significant public interest. The retaliatory interruption of her tenure in these circumstances is therefore not merely a domestic constitutional problem. It directly engages the concern of the Special Procedures because it signals that even the leadership of a constitutionally established human rights institution may be subjected to executive sanction for the performance of protected human rights work.
For these reasons, the need for United Nations intervention remains clear and urgent. Related domestic proceedings may address important questions of constitutional legality, and existing GANHRI processes may assess the implications for accreditation and compliance with the Paris Principles. However, neither of those processes displaces the protective role of the Special Procedures in addressing reprisals, deterring further escalation, and reinforcing the international obligation to safeguard the independence of National Human Rights Institutions and those who serve within them. The intervention sought in this complaint is therefore complementary to domestic and accreditation-related processes and is directed to the immediate international protection concerns arising from the retaliatory context of the measure at issue.
In the present circumstances, prompt engagement by the Special Procedures is necessary not only to address the harm already suffered by Ms. Majome as the immediate victim of a retaliatory measure, but also to confront the broader institutional damage caused by that measure. The case concerns both the punishment of an individual human rights defender and the attempted disciplining of a National Human Rights Institution through executive action. For that reason, United Nations intervention is required not only to protect Ms. Majome from further reprisals, but also to reaffirm that the independence of the Zimbabwe Human Rights Commission is a matter of public constitutional significance and international concern.
V. REQUESTED ACTION BY THE UN SPECIAL PROCEDURES AND THE UNITED NATIONS HIGH COMMISSIONER FOR HUMAN RIGHTS
In light of the seriousness of the facts presented, their ongoing nature, and their implications for the protection of human rights defenders and the independence of National Human Rights Institutions, Justice pour Tous Internationale respectfully requests the urgent engagement of the relevant United Nations Special Procedures mandate holders, as well as the urgent attention of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights. The intervention sought is directed not only at remedying the retaliatory harm suffered by Ms. Fungayi Jessie Majome personally, but also at preventing any further erosion of the independence, credibility, and effective functioning of the Zimbabwe Human Rights Commission as Zimbabwe’s National Human Rights Institution.
JPTi respectfully requests that the mandate holders transmit a joint urgent communication, whether in the form of an urgent appeal and/or allegation letter, to the Government of Zimbabwe concerning the removal, in substance and effect, of Ms. Majome from her position as Chairperson of the Zimbabwe Human Rights Commission. JPTi further requests that the present complaint and its supporting annexes be brought without delay to the attention of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, so that he may consider complementary and coordinated action within his mandate, including direct engagement with the Government of Zimbabwe and any other protective measures he may deem appropriate.
Such communication and coordinated engagement should seek clarification on the legal and factual basis of the measure at issue, including its compatibility with the Constitution of Zimbabwe, in particular sections 235, 237, and 90(1), and with Zimbabwe’s obligations under international human rights law. In that regard, the communication should expressly address Zimbabwe’s obligation to protect human rights defenders from reprisals, as reflected in the United Nations Declaration on Human Rights Defenders; Zimbabwe’s obligations under articles 19 and 25 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, read together with article 2(3); and its obligation to maintain an independent National Human Rights Institution in accordance with the Paris Principles, as endorsed by United Nations General Assembly resolution 48/134 and reaffirmed by the Human Rights Council in its resolutions on National Human Rights Institutions, including as further elaborated in the General Observations of the Sub-Committee on Accreditation concerning stability of tenure and the real and perceived independence of such institutions.
JPTi further requests that the Special Procedures and the High Commissioner call upon the Government of Zimbabwe to adopt immediate protective and remedial measures, including the rescission of the decision of 10 April 2026 and the restoration of Ms. Majome to the full and unhindered exercise of her functions, duties, powers, and privileges as Chairperson of the Zimbabwe Human Rights Commission. At a minimum, the Government should be called upon to provide an effective remedy consistent with the Constitution of Zimbabwe and the Paris Principles, and to refrain from any further interference with the functioning, composition, leadership, or tenure of the Zimbabwe Human Rights Commission, except through procedures strictly permitted by law and consistent with due process guarantees.
Given the prevailing climate of pressure on dissenting voices, human rights defenders, and oversight actors, JPTi also requests that the Special Procedures and the High Commissioner urge the Government of Zimbabwe to guarantee the physical and professional safety of Ms. Majome, as well as that of other members and staff of the ZHRC, and to refrain from any further acts of intimidation, harassment, retaliation, or pressure arising from the Commission’s public reporting on the CAB 3 process.
JPTi further invites the mandate holders and the High Commissioner to request detailed and specific information from the Government of Zimbabwe regarding the legal and factual basis of the measures taken against Ms. Majome. In particular, clarification should be sought on the legal grounds relied upon for the purported reassignment; the reasons for not initiating the constitutionally prescribed removal process under section 237; whether any allegation of incapacity, gross misconduct, or gross incompetence was ever made; whether any tribunal was considered, constituted, or recommended; and how the Government considers the measure at issue to be compatible with the constitutional guarantees of independence of Chapter 12 institutions, including under sections 235 and 90(1).
Further clarification should also be sought on how the Government considers the measure at issue to be consistent with Zimbabwe’s international obligations, including the protection of human rights defenders from reprisals, the guarantees of freedom of expression and participation in public affairs, the right to an effective remedy, and the duty to ensure the independence, stability of tenure, and freedom from executive interference required of National Human Rights Institutions under the Paris Principles and related international standards.
In addition, the Government should be requested to explain what safeguards are currently in place to ensure the independence of the Zimbabwe Human Rights Commission both in law and in practice, including any measures already adopted or envisaged to ensure full compliance with the Paris Principles. This should include, in particular, guarantees relating to the stability and security of tenure of commissioners, protections against direct or indirect executive interference in the composition, functioning, or leadership of the institution, and measures to preserve both the real and perceived independence of the Commission.
In light of the broader systemic concerns identified in this complaint, JPTi further requests that the Special Procedures and the High Commissioner recommend that the Government of Zimbabwe undertake legislative, constitutional, and institutional reforms specifically aimed at strengthening the independence of the Zimbabwe Human Rights Commission as a National Human Rights Institution. Such reforms should ensure full compliance with the Paris Principles, in particular by guaranteeing the security and stability of tenure of its members and by expressly prohibiting any form of removal, reassignment, transfer, or other interruption of tenure outside clearly defined procedures grounded in law, subject to independent oversight, and consistent with due process. These reforms should also ensure that no provision of domestic law, including those relating to executive appointment powers, may be interpreted or applied in a manner that permits direct or indirect executive interference with the composition, functioning, or leadership of the ZHRC.
JPTi further invites the mandate holders and the High Commissioner, if they deem it appropriate within their respective mandates, to take note of the ongoing consideration of this matter within the GANHRI accreditation framework and to engage in a manner that underscores the importance of remedies directed towards the restoration and strengthening of institutional independence, rather than its further erosion. In particular, the present case calls for emphasis on the principle that the appropriate response to unlawful executive interference with a National Human Rights Institution should be the restoration of independence, including the reinstatement of unlawfully interrupted tenure and the adoption of safeguards preventing recurrence.
Given the gravity of the issues raised, including their implications for democratic governance, the rule of law, the protection of human rights defenders, and the credibility of Zimbabwe’s National Human Rights Institution, JPTi also invites the Special Procedures and the High Commissioner to consider public-facing action. This may include, where appropriate, a public statement or press release issued jointly, or, if more suitable, coordinated separate public statements and/or press releases, underscoring the importance of protecting National Human Rights Institutions from executive interference, safeguarding human rights defenders from reprisals, and ensuring the immediate restoration of the independence and proper functioning of the Zimbabwe Human Rights Commission.
Finally, JPTi respectfully requests that the Special Procedures and the High Commissioner maintain ongoing monitoring and follow-up on this matter, including requests for updates from the Government of Zimbabwe on any steps taken to remedy the situation, to protect Ms. Majome from further reprisals, and to ensure compliance with Zimbabwe’s constitutional and international obligations.
In view of the ongoing and retaliatory character of the measures described, their cumulative chilling effect, the implications for the independence and accreditation of Zimbabwe’s National Human Rights Institution, and the urgent need to prevent further deterioration, JPTi respectfully submits that this case warrants urgent attention and prompt coordinated intervention by the United Nations Special Procedures and the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights.
ANNEXES (attached and online sources)
Annex 1. Official public documentary evidence of the purported “reassignment” of Ms. Fungayi Jessie Majome from the Zimbabwe Human Rights Commission (ZHRC) to the Public Service Commission, dated 10 April 2026, including the public press statement issued under the authority of the Chief Secretary to the President and Cabinet. This annex constitutes the central documentary evidence of the executive measure at issue.
Annex 2. Zimbabwe Human Rights Commission, Press Statement on the Public Hearings on the Constitution Amendment Bill No. 3 of 2026, dated 7 April 2026. This annex evidences the Commission’s monitoring mandate, the factual findings made in the course of that mandate, and the close temporal proximity between the publication of those findings and the subsequent measure taken against Ms. Majome.
Annex 3. Zimbabwe Human Rights Commission, Bill Analysis: Constitution of Zimbabwe Amendment Bill (No. 3), 2026, signed on 7 April 2026. This annex demonstrates the substantive constitutional and human rights concerns identified by the Commission in relation to CAB 3, including issues relating to democratic governance, participation, and fundamental rights, thereby providing critical context for the measure at issue.
Annex 4 (online). Video recording of the ZHRC press conference of 7 April 2026: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vfecVhbSxfE This annex provides audiovisual confirmation of the Commission’s public reporting and the content of its findings.
Annex 5. Network of African National Human Rights Institutions (NANHRI), Press Statement entitled “Concerns over the Independence of the Zimbabwe Human Rights Commission following the Re-assignment of its Chairperson,” dated 13 April 2026. This annex evidences regional institutional concern that the measure at issue constituted a threat to the independence of the ZHRC, raised legitimate concerns of retaliation, and appeared to circumvent constitutional guarantees of tenure and due process.
Annex 6. Global Alliance of National Human Rights Institutions (GANHRI), Letter from the Chairperson to the President of the Republic of Zimbabwe, dated 17 April 2026, concerning the alleged infringement of the independence of the ZHRC and the security of tenure of its members. This annex is of particular importance as it expressly recalls the Paris Principles, including General Observation 2.1 on the guarantee of tenure, highlights the incompatibility of executive dismissal with the independence of National Human Rights Institutions, raises the possibility of review of accreditation status, and calls for the protection of commissioners and staff.
Annex 7. Constitutional Court application challenging the purported reassignment of Ms. Majome, received by the Constitutional Court of Zimbabwe on 21 April 2026. This annex serves as corroborative evidence of the seriousness, justiciability, and public constitutional significance of the measure at issue. It pleads that the act in question amounted, in substance and effect, to a removal from office, alleges failure to comply with sections 237(3), 187(8), and 90(1) of the Constitution, and seeks relief including the setting aside of the 10 April 2026 directive, reinstatement of Ms. Majome to the full exercise of her functions, and an order restraining further interference with the Commission.
Annex 8 (online). Evidence demonstrating the practical implementation of the measure at issue, including material indicating that Ms. Majome vacated her office or ceased exercising her functions as Chairperson: https://x.com/NewsDay_Zim/status/2043716137104368118 This annex is of particular significance as it supports the contention that the measure did not merely alter internal administrative arrangements but operated in practice as a removal from office. The related domestic proceedings similarly refer to such material as confirmation that Ms. Majome was removed in substance and effect.
