Yesha
Senior Member
- Jan 28, 2026
- 183
- 97
A video circulating online showing a young person being confronted and allegedly harassed by a group in Bulawayo has reignited debate about sexuality, cultural values and the treatment of people perceived to be different.
The footage, initially shared by Bulawayo24 News, shows an individual with styled hair and earrings being confronted by a group. The circumstances that led to the confrontation have not been independently established, and the person's sexual orientation cannot be determined from their appearance.
The incident has nevertheless triggered sharply divided reactions online.
Some people condemned the confrontation as unacceptable, with social media users questioning why an individual's appearance or perceived sexuality should become a reason for public harassment.
Eulitah Dube was among those questioning why other people were concerned about the individual's appearance, while researcher Dominic Nyakudya criticised both the confrontation and aspects of how such incidents are reported.
Others defended what they described as Zimbabwean cultural and community values, although some of those voices also argued that the confrontation itself went too far.
The debate raises a broader question: what does Zimbabwean law actually say about LGBTQ people, and how did the country arrive at its current position?
Zimbabwe's complicated legal position
Zimbabwe's legal position is often simplified online as “homosexuality is illegal”. That description is incomplete.
The country's Criminal Law (Codification and Reform) Act specifically criminalises certain sexual conduct between men.
Section 73 states that a male person who, with the consent of another male person, knowingly engages in anal sexual intercourse or certain physical acts regarded as indecent can be convicted of sodomy. The law provides for a fine and/or imprisonment of up to one year. Both participants may be charged under the provision.
The wording is important because the law criminalises specified conduct rather than simply stating that a person is prohibited from identifying as gay.
There is also no equivalent provision in Section 73 criminalising consensual sexual conduct between women.
This means that saying “Zimbabwe has outlawed being gay” does not accurately describe what Section 73 says.
The Constitution and same-sex marriage
Zimbabwe's 2013 Constitution introduced another important part of the country's legal position.
Section 56 provides that all people are equal before the law and entitled to equal protection and benefit of the law. It also prohibits unfair discrimination on a range of grounds, including sex, gender, marital status, age, religion, culture and social status. Sexual orientation, however, is not expressly listed among the grounds in Section 56.
At the same time, the Constitution takes an explicit position on marriage.
Section 78(3) states that persons of the same sex are prohibited from marrying each other.
Zimbabwe therefore has a constitutional prohibition on same-sex marriage alongside a criminal law provision targeting certain same-sex sexual conduct between men.
But LGBTQ people do not lose all other constitutional rights because of their sexual orientation or gender identity.
Rights such as equality before the law, privacy, human dignity and other protections in the Constitution remain relevant to every person.
This distinction is important when discussing incidents such as the Bulawayo video.
Even where a country's laws criminalise particular conduct, that does not automatically give members of the public the right to assault, threaten or humiliate someone because they believe that person is gay or transgender.
From colonial law to post-independence Zimbabwe
Zimbabwe's current criminalisation of male same-sex conduct also has a colonial legal history.
The country inherited much of its criminal-law framework from British colonial rule. Laws against “sodomy” existed before independence and remained part of Zimbabwe's legal system after 1980.
The Criminal Law (Codification and Reform) Act later consolidated Zimbabwe's criminal law, with Section 73 retaining the offence of sodomy.
However, the history of same-sex relationships in Zimbabwe cannot simply be reduced to the claim that homosexuality was either “introduced by the West” or that modern LGBTQ identities existed in exactly the same form before colonialism.
Pre-colonial African societies had their own understandings of sexuality, gender, relationships and social roles. Those historical practices should not automatically be equated with the modern concept of LGBTQ identity.
What can be established more clearly is that some of the criminal laws used today have roots in colonial legal systems.
The 1995 turning point
The issue became particularly prominent in Zimbabwean public life in the 1990s.
GALZ, the Gays and Lesbians Association of Zimbabwe, was established in 1990 and became the country's first community-led LGBTI organisation. It initially focused on providing support and safe spaces for members of the community.
A major confrontation came in 1995 during the Zimbabwe International Book Fair in Harare.
GALZ sought to exhibit at the event, whose theme that year was “Human Rights and Justice”.
President Robert Mugabe publicly condemned homosexuality during the controversy, and the incident became a major turning point in Zimbabwe's public debate about homosexuality, human rights and African identity. Human Rights Watch documented the controversy as the beginning of a broader campaign of intolerance.
GALZ says the organisation subsequently faced raids, intimidation and other forms of state pressure.
The organisation also says that a 1996 court case eventually overturned the state's attempt to prevent it from participating in the Book Fair.
The issue therefore moved beyond private questions about sexuality and became part of Zimbabwe's political debate.
Homosexuality and Zimbabwean politics
During Robert Mugabe's presidency, homosexuality was frequently portrayed by the government as incompatible with African values and as an influence associated with the West.
This rhetoric helped turn homosexuality into a political and cultural issue rather than simply a question of private sexual behaviour.
For many Zimbabweans, opposition to homosexuality has since been expressed through religious, cultural and moral arguments.
Others argue that those attitudes should not be used to justify violence, discrimination or denial of basic rights.
That disagreement remains visible today.
The distinction between sexuality and appearance
The Bulawayo video also demonstrates why journalists and members of the public need to be careful with language.
A person's clothing, hairstyle, jewellery or mannerisms cannot establish their sexual orientation.
A man wearing earrings, for example, is not necessarily gay. A woman with traditionally masculine clothing is not necessarily lesbian. Likewise, a person's gender expression does not automatically reveal their sexual orientation.
This distinction is particularly important when reporting incidents involving alleged homophobia or transphobia.
The Ricky Nathanson case
Zimbabwe's courts have also dealt with cases involving gender expression.
In 2014, transgender woman Ricky Nathanson was arrested in Bulawayo after using a women's toilet. She was later prosecuted for criminal nuisance.
Nathanson challenged the treatment she received and was eventually awarded damages by the High Court in 2019.
The case became significant in Zimbabwe's human-rights debate because it demonstrated that police treatment of transgender and gender-nonconforming people can itself be subjected to judicial scrutiny.
It also showed that criminal laws relating to sexuality do not give authorities unlimited power over people because of their gender expression or perceived sexual orientation.
Where Zimbabwe stands today
Zimbabwe therefore occupies a complicated position.
Certain consensual sexual conduct between men remains criminalised under Section 73 of the Criminal Law (Codification and Reform) Act.
Same-sex marriage is expressly prohibited by Section 78(3) of the Constitution.
At the same time, the Constitution states that everyone is equal before the law and entitled to equal protection and benefit of the law.
Sexual orientation is not expressly included in the list of prohibited grounds of discrimination in Section 56.
This creates a legal environment in which LGBTQ people can face significant restrictions and social hostility while still possessing general constitutional rights and protections.
The wider issue
The Bulawayo video is therefore about more than one confrontation.
It raises questions about how Zimbabweans understand culture, religion, sexuality, gender expression and individual rights.
It also exposes a tension that has existed for decades.
On one side are people who believe homosexuality conflicts with Zimbabwean cultural, religious or moral values.
On the other are people who argue that personal beliefs should not become justification for violence, humiliation or the denial of basic rights.
The history is equally complicated.
Zimbabwe's current laws criminalising certain male same-sex conduct have roots in colonial law, while the strong political opposition to homosexuality that emerged after independence became particularly visible during the 1995 Book Fair controversy.
Three decades later, the debate remains unresolved.
The question is therefore not simply whether Zimbabwe is “for” or “against” LGBTQ people.
It is also about what the law actually criminalises, what the Constitution protects, where cultural beliefs come from, and whether disagreement over sexuality can ever justify harassment or violence against another person.
As the Bulawayo video continues to generate debate, those distinctions matter.
Source: Zimbabwe Constitution, Criminal Law (Codification and Reform) Act, GALZ, Human Rights Watch and reports surrounding the Bulawayo incident.
The footage, initially shared by Bulawayo24 News, shows an individual with styled hair and earrings being confronted by a group. The circumstances that led to the confrontation have not been independently established, and the person's sexual orientation cannot be determined from their appearance.
The incident has nevertheless triggered sharply divided reactions online.
Some people condemned the confrontation as unacceptable, with social media users questioning why an individual's appearance or perceived sexuality should become a reason for public harassment.
Eulitah Dube was among those questioning why other people were concerned about the individual's appearance, while researcher Dominic Nyakudya criticised both the confrontation and aspects of how such incidents are reported.
Others defended what they described as Zimbabwean cultural and community values, although some of those voices also argued that the confrontation itself went too far.
The debate raises a broader question: what does Zimbabwean law actually say about LGBTQ people, and how did the country arrive at its current position?
Zimbabwe's complicated legal position
Zimbabwe's legal position is often simplified online as “homosexuality is illegal”. That description is incomplete.
The country's Criminal Law (Codification and Reform) Act specifically criminalises certain sexual conduct between men.
Section 73 states that a male person who, with the consent of another male person, knowingly engages in anal sexual intercourse or certain physical acts regarded as indecent can be convicted of sodomy. The law provides for a fine and/or imprisonment of up to one year. Both participants may be charged under the provision.
The wording is important because the law criminalises specified conduct rather than simply stating that a person is prohibited from identifying as gay.
There is also no equivalent provision in Section 73 criminalising consensual sexual conduct between women.
This means that saying “Zimbabwe has outlawed being gay” does not accurately describe what Section 73 says.
The Constitution and same-sex marriage
Zimbabwe's 2013 Constitution introduced another important part of the country's legal position.
Section 56 provides that all people are equal before the law and entitled to equal protection and benefit of the law. It also prohibits unfair discrimination on a range of grounds, including sex, gender, marital status, age, religion, culture and social status. Sexual orientation, however, is not expressly listed among the grounds in Section 56.
At the same time, the Constitution takes an explicit position on marriage.
Section 78(3) states that persons of the same sex are prohibited from marrying each other.
Zimbabwe therefore has a constitutional prohibition on same-sex marriage alongside a criminal law provision targeting certain same-sex sexual conduct between men.
But LGBTQ people do not lose all other constitutional rights because of their sexual orientation or gender identity.
Rights such as equality before the law, privacy, human dignity and other protections in the Constitution remain relevant to every person.
This distinction is important when discussing incidents such as the Bulawayo video.
Even where a country's laws criminalise particular conduct, that does not automatically give members of the public the right to assault, threaten or humiliate someone because they believe that person is gay or transgender.
From colonial law to post-independence Zimbabwe
Zimbabwe's current criminalisation of male same-sex conduct also has a colonial legal history.
The country inherited much of its criminal-law framework from British colonial rule. Laws against “sodomy” existed before independence and remained part of Zimbabwe's legal system after 1980.
The Criminal Law (Codification and Reform) Act later consolidated Zimbabwe's criminal law, with Section 73 retaining the offence of sodomy.
However, the history of same-sex relationships in Zimbabwe cannot simply be reduced to the claim that homosexuality was either “introduced by the West” or that modern LGBTQ identities existed in exactly the same form before colonialism.
Pre-colonial African societies had their own understandings of sexuality, gender, relationships and social roles. Those historical practices should not automatically be equated with the modern concept of LGBTQ identity.
What can be established more clearly is that some of the criminal laws used today have roots in colonial legal systems.
The 1995 turning point
The issue became particularly prominent in Zimbabwean public life in the 1990s.
GALZ, the Gays and Lesbians Association of Zimbabwe, was established in 1990 and became the country's first community-led LGBTI organisation. It initially focused on providing support and safe spaces for members of the community.
A major confrontation came in 1995 during the Zimbabwe International Book Fair in Harare.
GALZ sought to exhibit at the event, whose theme that year was “Human Rights and Justice”.
President Robert Mugabe publicly condemned homosexuality during the controversy, and the incident became a major turning point in Zimbabwe's public debate about homosexuality, human rights and African identity. Human Rights Watch documented the controversy as the beginning of a broader campaign of intolerance.
GALZ says the organisation subsequently faced raids, intimidation and other forms of state pressure.
The organisation also says that a 1996 court case eventually overturned the state's attempt to prevent it from participating in the Book Fair.
The issue therefore moved beyond private questions about sexuality and became part of Zimbabwe's political debate.
Homosexuality and Zimbabwean politics
During Robert Mugabe's presidency, homosexuality was frequently portrayed by the government as incompatible with African values and as an influence associated with the West.
This rhetoric helped turn homosexuality into a political and cultural issue rather than simply a question of private sexual behaviour.
For many Zimbabweans, opposition to homosexuality has since been expressed through religious, cultural and moral arguments.
Others argue that those attitudes should not be used to justify violence, discrimination or denial of basic rights.
That disagreement remains visible today.
The distinction between sexuality and appearance
The Bulawayo video also demonstrates why journalists and members of the public need to be careful with language.
A person's clothing, hairstyle, jewellery or mannerisms cannot establish their sexual orientation.
A man wearing earrings, for example, is not necessarily gay. A woman with traditionally masculine clothing is not necessarily lesbian. Likewise, a person's gender expression does not automatically reveal their sexual orientation.
This distinction is particularly important when reporting incidents involving alleged homophobia or transphobia.
The Ricky Nathanson case
Zimbabwe's courts have also dealt with cases involving gender expression.
In 2014, transgender woman Ricky Nathanson was arrested in Bulawayo after using a women's toilet. She was later prosecuted for criminal nuisance.
Nathanson challenged the treatment she received and was eventually awarded damages by the High Court in 2019.
The case became significant in Zimbabwe's human-rights debate because it demonstrated that police treatment of transgender and gender-nonconforming people can itself be subjected to judicial scrutiny.
It also showed that criminal laws relating to sexuality do not give authorities unlimited power over people because of their gender expression or perceived sexual orientation.
Where Zimbabwe stands today
Zimbabwe therefore occupies a complicated position.
Certain consensual sexual conduct between men remains criminalised under Section 73 of the Criminal Law (Codification and Reform) Act.
Same-sex marriage is expressly prohibited by Section 78(3) of the Constitution.
At the same time, the Constitution states that everyone is equal before the law and entitled to equal protection and benefit of the law.
Sexual orientation is not expressly included in the list of prohibited grounds of discrimination in Section 56.
This creates a legal environment in which LGBTQ people can face significant restrictions and social hostility while still possessing general constitutional rights and protections.
The wider issue
The Bulawayo video is therefore about more than one confrontation.
It raises questions about how Zimbabweans understand culture, religion, sexuality, gender expression and individual rights.
It also exposes a tension that has existed for decades.
On one side are people who believe homosexuality conflicts with Zimbabwean cultural, religious or moral values.
On the other are people who argue that personal beliefs should not become justification for violence, humiliation or the denial of basic rights.
The history is equally complicated.
Zimbabwe's current laws criminalising certain male same-sex conduct have roots in colonial law, while the strong political opposition to homosexuality that emerged after independence became particularly visible during the 1995 Book Fair controversy.
Three decades later, the debate remains unresolved.
The question is therefore not simply whether Zimbabwe is “for” or “against” LGBTQ people.
It is also about what the law actually criminalises, what the Constitution protects, where cultural beliefs come from, and whether disagreement over sexuality can ever justify harassment or violence against another person.
As the Bulawayo video continues to generate debate, those distinctions matter.
Source: Zimbabwe Constitution, Criminal Law (Codification and Reform) Act, GALZ, Human Rights Watch and reports surrounding the Bulawayo incident.
