‘Wrecking ball’ policy in Zim infrastructure sector

76

Michelle Munyanduki

I HAD some time to digest the Reserve Bank of Zimbabwe (RBZ)’s statement of March 16, 2026 regarding the exclusive payment of public sector contractors and suppliers in 100 percent ZiG. The policy passively enters contract law territory and raises a fundamental question. Where does policy end and contract law begin?

In a country where our National Devel­opment Strategy 2 2026-2030 is to fund development through PPP structures (pri­vate investors funding projects) as a way forward, one must pause and ask who is going to fund or invest in projects that can be tampered with at policy level without en­gagement.

Our word on paper, which represents the law between the parties, a representation of a meeting of the minds must have weight. If that loses its value and if we forget that pacts are servanda, then we go down a slip­pery slope where executive fiat ultimately overrides agreed terms between parties.

In Chombo v Minister of Lands and Others SC 08/26 the courts cited Roffey v Catherall to highlight that the highest form of public policy is actually the protection of the “liberty of contracting”. I am not con­vinced this policy on ZiG takes this declara­tion from our supreme courts into account.

While the RBZ points to the National Standard Price List as a tool for stability, we must look at the landscape it creates for the construction industry.

What a tool does must be judged by its results. So the more accurate question is what does a National Standard Price List ac­tually do, not what is it intended to achieve? It essentially controls price, and when you control price the rules of competition sim­ply say you kill competition. Procurement will no longer be about quality but about price.

The move to settle 100 percent in ZiG ef­fectively varies existing contracts retrospec­tively. Applying this to ongoing contracts where financial models were built on USD components is concerning. It is concerning because the government is simply showing us that no matter what is agreed, however material, they will come and change the rules at will if not challenged at law.

The issue is not just about the currency, but the principle of pacta sunt servanda (agreements must be kept). When the state unilaterally alters the “bargain” it under­mines the legal certainty required for high-cap infrastructure projects.

The Supreme Court of Zimbabwe’s de­cision in the Chombo v Minister of Lands case provides powerful judicial support spe­cifically regarding the state’s obligation to honour contractual bargains despite shifting administrative or policy goals.

The RBZ should not use broad policy tools to bypass the “carefully negotiated provisions” of existing infrastructure con­tracts. Doing so, according to the Supreme Court, “subverts the certainty” required for long-term development. While the RBZ guarantees foreign currency access via the willing buyer willing seller interbank mar­ket, the volatility of that access versus the certainty of a contract term is a massive gamble for contractors.

One of the key statements in the Chom­bo case is that the government must engage with the “serious economic and contractual consequences” of the state’s interferences because invalidating or altering a contract mid-performance exposes investors to “ma­jor commercial loss”.

My question then to the national purse is if they have USD at the willing buyer will­ing seller interbank market, why not chan­nel it to the respective entities for payments instead of adding this extra administrative burden.

Perhaps there are reasons for this not clearly spelt out in their statement but a more pragmatic approach would be to re­spect the sanctity of existing contracts. In a volatile landscape, the certainty of terms is the only thing that keeps the cranes moving. As a country we need to create an environ­ment where contracts are protected as much as our courts emphasise we should.

In law school one of the first things you learn about law is that it does not apply retrospectively. This must be remembered and considered. A blanket policy that is all encompassing and ignorant of investments and investors cannot be in the interest of our nation building agenda.

So if I were to sit in the same room as those at the Treasury and after the elders have spoken, I would proffer the position that protects investment. That an excep­tion is offered for all existing infrastructure projects. Why this position, one might ask? Well, I strongly believe that policy should be a steering wheel for the future, not a wrecking ball for past agreements entered in good faith.

By honouring the original payment terms of current contracts while applying the ZiG-only mandate to new tenders, the state can achieve its de-dollarisation goals without triggering the ‘major commercial losses’ warned of in Chombo v Minister of Lands.

Let us then as a nation prioritise engage­ment first and policy later to ensure that the transition to ZiG builds the economy rather than breaking the contracts that sustain it.

Munyanduki a construction law con­sultant at Tiefenthaler Consultants. She advises both public and private sector clients on complex infrastructure proj­ects based on FIDIC, NEC JBCC con­tracts and dispute resolution across the energy, mining, and construction sectors. She can be reached at michelle.munyan­duki@constructionlaw.co.za