The Parliamentary Legal Committee has issued an adverse report on the Public Service Amendment Bill (H.B. 8, 2025), citing several constitutional inconsistencies—a development that forced the House to defer further consideration of the proposed law.

The adverse report was tabled during the Committee Stage, where Zanu-PF legislator Zvobgo Eddison outlined the PLC’s unanimous decision, reached on 23 October 2025, to oppose the Bill in its current form. The Committee argued that several key clauses conflict with constitutional provisions on the separation of powers, labour rights and the functions of major State institutions.

Expanded Definition of “Approved Services” Challenged

One of the most contentious issues is the Bill’s expanded definition of “approved services,” which now includes constitutional commissions, security services and Parliament. The PLC warned that this wording effectively places Parliamentary staff under the Public Service, a move it described as unconstitutional.

Citing Sections 154 and 199 of the Constitution, the Committee stressed that Parliamentary staff fall under the exclusive authority of the Committee on Standing Rules and Orders and are expressly excluded from the Public Service. Granting the Public Service Commission (PSC) authority over their appointments, transfers or secondments would undermine the doctrine of separation of powers.

“The continued use of this definition without amendment does not imply a legislative intention to subsume Parliamentary staff within the category of ‘approved services.’ Parliament constitutes a separate constitutional authority, and any consultation regarding its personnel should be conducted with the appropriate Parliamentary body—not with a Ministry.

“Parliamentary staff form part of the legislative branch of the State and are not subject to the administrative control of the Public Service Commission. Their appointments, secondments and transfers fall under the exclusive purview of the CSRO,” the Committee noted.

Concerns Over Recasting PSC Functions

The PLC also raised concerns over Clause 8 of the Bill, which outlines the functions of the Public Service Commission. The Committee said the proposed wording “refines, broadens or recasts” functions already set out in Section 203 of the Constitution.

According to the PLC, the Constitution—amended in 2021—already provides a clear and complete framework for the PSC’s mandate. Any attempt to alter or reframe those functions through ordinary legislation risks creating legal uncertainty and violating the principle of legality.

Collective Job Action Clause Flagged as Unconstitutional

The Bill’s provisions on collective job action were also criticised. Clause 22 seeks to introduce a subsection stating that public servants may participate in collective job action “unless” they work in an essential service.

The PLC argued that this amounts to a prohibition, not a constitutionally permissible restriction. Section 65(3) of the Constitution creates three categories: a right for general employees, prohibition for security services and regulated restrictions—backed by procedures—for essential services. The Bill does not outline any such procedures, implying a blanket ban that contradicts constitutional guarantees.

“The use of the phrase ‘unless they are employed in any department, service or section of the Public Service that has been declared to be an essential service’ suggests a prohibition, not a restriction. Restrictions denote the existence of procedures that permit the exercise of the right within set parameters and circumstances. The absence of such procedures suggests the Amendment treats restriction as prohibition, which is inconsistent with the Constitution.

“The Committee opines that Clauses 3, 8 and 22 of the Public Service Amendment Bill contravene Sections 65, 154, 199 and 203 of the Constitution,” Zvobgo said.