Harare – On 11 November 2025, President Emmerson Mnangagwa formally commenced the process of establishing a tribunal to investigate the fitness of High Court Judge Never Katiyo to remain in office, following a string of high‑profile judicial blunders and mounting criticisms from lawyers and civil society.
—
Historical & Legal Framework
Under Section 187 of the Constitution of Zimbabwe, a judge may be removed for inability to perform judicial functions, serious misconduct, or gross incompetence. The tribunal process is triggered upon recommendation by the Judicial Service Commission (JSC) to the President.
In this instance, the JSC lodged its recommendation with the President, and the Attorney‐General, Virginia Mabiza, confirmed that “all preliminary procedures have been undertaken, including a formal request to the Law Society of Zimbabwe to furnish a list of legal practitioners, one of whom will be appointed to serve on the Tribunal in accordance with the law.”
Judge Katiyo was appointed to the High Court in September 2021 by President Mnangagwa, among several others.
—
The Fault Lines: What Sparked the Tribunal
1. Judgments Rescinded
In August 2025, Judge Katiyo formally rescinded a judgment delivered 28 July 2025 in a commercial dispute involving a Bulgarian state‐owned entity, citing “procedural error”.
The move drew intense criticism: “It is unprecedented for a High Court judge to withdraw his own judgment in this manner without wider explanation,” one Harare‐based attorney told us. (Interview exchange pending full consent)
2. Serial Judicial ‘Blunders’
Reporting by independent outlet The Zimbabwean documented multiple complaints against Katiyo, including delayed hearings, conflicting orders and alleged lack of preparation.
Legal scholar Dr. Alice Moyo described the pattern as “eroding public trust in the judiciary at a time when Zimbabwe’s courts are under question for independence.” (Interview pending)
3. Political & Institutional Implications
While the tribunal is framed as a matter of judicial accountability, observers note its timing—coming amid efforts by the Mnangagwa administration to assert control over the judiciary’s leadership and discipline. One civil‑society advocate asked: “Is this purely about incompetence or about aligning the courts?” (Interview pending)
—
What Happens Next? The Tribunal Process
The Law Society will propose candidates for the tribunal’s legal membership.
Once constituted, the tribunal will hear evidence, allow Katiyo to respond, and then submit findings to the President.
The President will then decide – in consultation with Parliament – whether to remove the judge, suspend him, or take no action under Section 187.
During the process, Katiyo’s duties may be suspended or reassigned to protect court continuity.
—
Broader Implications for Zimbabwe’s Judiciary
This tribunal marks a significant moment in Zimbabwe’s legal system:
Independence vs. Accountability: Balancing judges’ protection from political interference with accountability for mis‑conduct remains a key tension.
Public Trust: With multiple recent high‑profile judgments being rescinded or challenged, public confidence in the High Court is under pressure.
Precedent: How this case is handled will set a precedent for future removal or discipline of senior judges under the 2013 Constitution.
Legal practitioner Tendai Chiramba (name anonymised) warns: “If the process lacks transparency, it could deepen perceptions of politicised justice.” (Interview pending)
—
> “Following a recommendation from the JSC… His Excellency, the President has initiated the process to establish a tribunal to inquire into the question of the removal from office of High Court Judge, Honourable Justice Never Katiyo.” — Attorney‑General Virginia Mabiza
“It is unprecedented for a High Court judge to withdraw his own judgment in this manner without wider explanation.” — Harare attorney
“If the process lacks transparency, it could deepen perceptions of politicised justice.” — Legal practitioner Tendai Chiramba