By Anorld Moyo

Good legislation is not measured by how quickly it is passed, but by how rigorously it is scrutinised. As Parliament considers the proposed SI330 amendments, its duty is not simply to approve or reject reform—it is to ensure that every significant legal, economic and healthcare consequence has been fully tested.

The proposed amendments to the Medical Aid Societies Regulations (SI330 of 2000) have reached Parliament.

That is exactly where they belong.

Reforms capable of reshaping Zimbabwe’s healthcare system should never be determined through administrative process alone. They deserve the full weight of parliamentary scrutiny because they extend beyond the medical aid sector. They touch on healthcare delivery, employment, investment, constitutional governance and public confidence in the country’s regulatory framework.

Parliament’s duty is not simply to decide whether SI330 should proceed.

Its duty is to determine whether the proposed amendments represent good law.

Good law solves problems without creating bigger ones.

Stakeholders, including the Association of Healthcare Funders of Zimbabwe (AHFoZ), have formally placed their concerns before Parliament through petitions and written submissions to the Portfolio Committees on Health and Child Care and Justice, Legal and Parliamentary Affairs.

Parliament is under no obligation to accept those submissions.

Neither can it afford to ignore them.

That is precisely why Parliament exists—to test evidence, challenge competing arguments and determine where the national interest truly lies.

Healthcare is unlike most sectors of the economy.

Every regulatory decision ultimately affects patients waiting for treatment, families seeking affordable healthcare, doctors and nurses delivering essential services, healthcare workers whose livelihoods depend on the sector and investors financing hospitals, clinics, laboratories and specialist healthcare facilities.

Those interests are not competing.

They are interconnected.

Parliament’s responsibility is therefore not to choose winners and losers.

It is to balance legitimate public interests.

If governance concerns exist, they should be addressed.

If competition concerns have been raised, they should be examined.

If constitutional questions arise, they deserve careful legal scrutiny.

If significant economic consequences are anticipated, Parliament should insist on understanding them before recommending reform.

That is what responsible lawmaking demands.

The forthcoming oral evidence sessions must therefore be more than procedural exercises.

They should challenge assumptions.

They should test competing claims.

They should require government, regulators, healthcare funders, healthcare providers, patient representatives, economists and legal experts to support every position with verifiable evidence.

No stakeholder should expect Parliament to accept its arguments without scrutiny.

Neither should Parliament approve regulatory changes unless it is satisfied that they will leave Zimbabwe better served.

Lawmakers should ask the questions that matter.

Will these amendments improve patient access to healthcare?

Will they strengthen governance and accountability?

If healthcare capacity is reduced, who will replace it?

If employment is affected, what mitigation measures are in place?

If investor confidence is weakened, how will Zimbabwe attract the additional investment needed to strengthen its healthcare system?

If Parliament cannot answer those questions with confidence, then it should continue asking them until it can.

That is not obstruction.

That is Parliament doing its job.

Zimbabwe’s Constitution entrusts Parliament with oversight because legislation carries consequences long after political debate has ended.

History will not judge Parliament by how quickly it considered SI330.

It will judge Parliament by whether every significant consequence was examined, every major concern was heard and every recommendation was grounded in evidence rather than assumption.

That is the standard SI330 deserves.

And that is the standard Zimbabweans should expect from their Parliament.