Zimbabwe

Information uploaded as at July 2026

AT A GLANCE

Zimbabwe's AI use in criminal justice is concentrated in law enforcement surveillance, with prosecutors, courts, and defence lagging behind. Law enforcement leads with facial recognition (via a 2018 partnership with China's CloudWalk), border biometrics (Hikvision, since 2018), and a USD 100 million Huawei-backed surveillance grid in Harare (2020), alongside an in-development fingerprint system and planned AI traffic cameras. Prosecutors report no AI use, with processes remaining paper-based. Courts have no reported AI deployment, though a non-AI case management system supports e-filing and virtual hearings; notably, in 2025 the Supreme Court nullified filings containing twelve AI-fabricated case citations (Pulserate Investments v Andrew Zuze). Defence counsel report only limited, informal AI use for research and contract review. There is no mandatory AI training for justice-sector practitioners.

Zimbabwe launched its first National AI Strategy (2026-2030) in March 2026, but as at July 2026 no AI-specific legislation has been enacted. General laws — the Legal Practitioners Act, Criminal Procedure and Evidence Act, Criminal Law (Codification and Reform) Act, and Cyber and Data Protection Act 2021 — govern electronic evidence, conduct, and data protection without addressing AI directly. There are no AI-specific guidelines for practitioners, though existing disciplinary standards may apply, as the Pulserate case illustrates. Constitutional protections — fair trial, an independent court, and presumption of innocence — provide a further backdrop. Separately, the government has announced an ‘AI Cyber Shield’ to counter AI-driven threats like deepfakes, and a National Cybersecurity Strategy awaits cabinet approval.

USE

Law enforcement

Operational support

Zimbabwean law enforcement agencies, primarily the Zimbabwe Republic Police (‘ZRP’), are beginning to use AI-assisted technologies. For example, the ZRP, in partnership with the Zimbabwe Centre for High-Performance Computing are developing an automated fingerprint identification system to enhance smart policing and streamline criminal tracking processes. This new system digitises fingerprints from crime scenes, and uses algorithms and advanced computing technology to compare these fingerprints against police databases.

The Government and police authorities have also introduced smart traffic management and policing tools. These systems are capable of automatic number-plate recognition, speed detection, and red-light monitoring. Once operational, the goal of these systems is to accurately identify offending vehicles, link them to databases, and generate offence records.

Other law enforcement AI initiatives for operational support include the potential use of AI in patrolling high-risk areas and facilitating search and rescue missions.

Data review and analysis

The most significant AI deployment in Zimbabwean law enforcement relates to data review and analysis. Examples of such use include:

• Facial recognition technology: in 2018, Zimbabwe signed a strategic cooperation partnership with Guangzhou-based start-up CloudWalk Technology. The agreement gave Zimbabwe access to a facial recognition database for law enforcement and the Smart Cities initiative, used primarily as a nation-wide facial recognition system for surveillance and digital identity.
• Border control: since 2018, Hikvision has been used by some of Zimbabwe’s airports and international border control points, and is being integrated with locally developed technology to drive a national AI facial recognition system. 
• Surveillance: In 2020, the government signed a USD 100 million contract with Huawei to expand a mass surveillance grid including CCTV networks and AI-powered monitoring in Harare and other areas.

Prosecutors

As at July 2026, the National Prosecuting Authority of Zimbabwe has not publicly shared use of AI-powered case management, charging-support tools, evidence review and analysis, and legal research tools. Prosecutorial processes remain largely paper-based.

Courts

As at July 2026, there are no reported cases of AI use by courts in Zimbabwe.

However, digital infrastructure is being developed. In May 2022, the judiciary in Zimbabwe launched an Integrated Electronic Case Management System in partnership with Synergy International Systems, starting with the High Court’s Commercial Division and expanding to other courts by early 2023. The system is not powered by AI but it enables e-filing, virtual hearings, online case tracking, e-payment, and digitised record-keeping—managed collaboratively with police, prosecutors, prisons, and judicial officers. Virtual courts are also being developed, for example in: the Harare Magistrates’ Court, the Harare Remand Prison, Chikurubi Maximum Security Prison and Harare High Court to meet urgent hearing needs.

Defence

As at July 2026, there is limited reported AI use by defence counsel in Zimbabwean criminal proceedings.

Legal research, analysis and drafting support

Law firms in Zimbabwe have reportedly used AI tools for contract review and management, and casework research.

Victims

Victims in Zimbabwe have indirect standing as the default rule, with limited routes to direct standing under the Criminal Procedure and Evidence Act [Chapter 9:07]. Article 258 of the Constitution establishes that there is a National Prosecuting Authority, which is responsible for instituting and undertaking criminal prosecutions on behalf of the State. Section 11 of the Criminal Procedure and Evidence Act outlines the functions of local public prosecutor and states that when there is lodged with or made before a local public prosecutor a sworn declaration in writing by any person disclosing that any other person has committed an offence chargeable in the magistrates court to which such public prosecutor is attached, he or she shall determine whether there are good grounds for prosecution or not. Therefore, while any individual may lodge a sworn declaration disclosing an offence, the prosecutor is the one who determines whether there are grounds for prosecution.

However, pursuant to Section 13 of the Criminal Procedure and Evidence Act, there are limited instances where parties may pursue private prosecution on refusal of the prosecutor general to prosecute. Section 13 states that in all cases where the Prosecutor-General declines to prosecute for an alleged offence, any private party, who can show some substantial and peculiar interest in the issue of the trial arising out of some injury which he individually has suffered by the commission of the offence, may prosecute, in any court competent to try the offence, the person alleged to have committed it. Section 14 outlines other persons entitled to prosecute, including a spouse of the person against whom the offence was committed; the legal guardians or curators of minors or mentally disordered or defective persons, in respect of offences committed against their wards; the surviving spouse or children or, where there is no surviving spouse or child, any of the next-of-kin of any deceased person, in respect of any offence by which the death of such person is alleged to have been caused; public bodies and persons on whom the right is specially conferred by statute, in respect of particular offences. In order for a private party to summon any party to answer a charge, they must present a certificate signed by the Prosecutor-General pursuant to Section 16 of the Criminal Procedure and Evidence Act.

As at July 2026, there are no reported cases of victims in Zimbabwe making use of AI in legal proceedings.

TRAINING

There is no mandatory or systematic training on AI for criminal justice practitioners in Zimbabwe. However, Zimbabwe’s National AI Strategy (2026–2030) identifies AI Talent and Capacity Development as one of its six core pillars, including through an AI literacy campaign (‘Nzwisiso.ai’), sector-specific academies, and diaspora engagement. The Strategy’s Foundation Building phase (2025–2026) is intended to lay groundwork for training infrastructure, though the justice sector is not expressly prioritised.

REGULATION

Zimbabwe has recently taken significant steps toward a national AI governance framework, culminating in the launch of its first comprehensive AI strategy in March 2026, though as at July 2026 no dedicated AI-specific legislation has yet been enacted. In the interim, AI use is governed by a patchwork of general laws — including the Legal Practitioners Act, the Criminal Procedure and Evidence Act, the Criminal Law (Codification and Reform) Act, and the Cyber and Data Protection Act 2021 — none of which directly address AI, but which extend to electronic evidence, professional conduct, and data protection issues relevant to AI's use in criminal proceedings. There are no specific guidelines for legal practitioners on the use of AI, though existing professional conduct rules may be applied to AI-related misconduct. Constitutional protections, including the rights to a fair trial, an independent and impartial court, and the presumption of innocence, provide a further backdrop against which AI use in the justice system may be assessed.

AI Regulations

National AI Strategy 2026-2030

In March 2026, Zimbabwe launched its National AI Strategy 2026–2030. The Strategy was developed with technical and financial support from UNESCO, the United Nations in Zimbabwe, and Patrick J. McGovern Foundation, following a national AI Readiness Assessment Methodology report completed in 2025.

It is anchored on six pillars: (1) AI Talent and Capacity Development; (2) AI Infrastructure and Computational Sovereignty; (3) AI Adoption and Service Transformation; (4) AI Governance, Ethics and Regulatory Framework; (5) AI Research, Development and Innovation; and (6) AI International Collaboration and Diplomacy.

Five flagship initiatives were announced within the Strategy: a Zimbabwean AI Grand Challenge; a National AI and Data Platform (‘Project Pangolin’); an AI literacy campaign (‘Nzwisiso.ai’); an AI Regulatory Sandbox (‘Innovation Crucible’); and a National AI Innovation Fund (‘Mugove/Isabelo’ Fund). The Zimbabwe AI Grand Challenge is a competition throughout Zimbabwe aimed at spurring local innovation and stimulating the startup landscape of the country. Project Pangolin is a national program with the goal of accelerating the advancement and implementation of AI in Zimbabwe; the focus is on developing local AI skills and capabilities. Nzwisiso.ai, a national AI literacy drive, seeks to change the public perception of AI and bring awareness to a wider audience, especially rural communities. The Regulatory Sandbox is overseen by POTRAZ and aims to provide a secure environment for innovators to test their AI startup technologies as well as demonstrate safety and ethical adherence. Winners of the AI Grand Challenge will receive assistance from the National AI Innovation Fund, which offers initial funding and guidance to help transition ideas to market-ready businesses.

The Strategy proposes a flexible policy for AI development, deployment and use, including system classification, risk assessment, compliance and enforcement; a clear liability framework; modernised IP laws; ethical procurement regulations; data governance reforms; and a recommended revision of the Cyber and Data Protection Act for AI-specific needs. A proposed independent governance body (ZAIRA) was discussed in 2025 but was superseded by the Strategy’s governance structures (a National AI Council and AI Strategy Implementation Office). No AI-specific legislation has yet been enacted.

Guidelines for practitioners

As at July 2026, there are no specific guidelines for practitioners on the responsible use of AI. In the absence of specific guidance, pre-existing guidelines apply.

Legal Practitioners Act 2016

The 2016 Legal Practitioners Act (LPA) regulates admission and enrolment of legal practitioners and sets standards for professional conduct and ethics (Chapter 27:07). The Act would apply to violations of ethical rules by legal practitioners involving the use of AI tools. For example, The LPA prescribes discipline for ‘unprofessional, dishonourable, or unworthy conduct.’ This would include failure to understand the limitations of AI tools, failure to verify, and blind reliance and seemingly would require that lawyers must not mislead the court or cite false authorities.

The Act also establishes the Law Society of Zimbabwe, which acts as the professional regulatory body for lawyers in Zimbabwe. In March 2026, the Law Society of Zimbabwe announced that it was undergoing a ‘rebranding exercise’ aimed at modernisation, strengthening, and ‘aligning the legal profession with evolving technological and societal demands.’

There is no publicly documented information regarding Zimbabwe’s engagement with or adoption of the UNESCO Guidelines for the Use of AI Systems in Courts and Tribunals. However, Zimbabwe makes multiple references to UNESCO throughout its National AI Strategy. The Strategy acknowledges UNESCO’s assistance and leadership with respect to conducting Artificial Intelligence readiness assessment, resulting in an AI Readiness Assessment Methodology (RAM) report, which identified the development of a national AI strategy as a major recommendation. The Strategy also acknowledges that Zimbabwe aims to maintain a consistent and impactful presence in AI forums, such as UNESCO, and plans on deepening its collaboration with international development agencies, such as UNESCO.

Criminal procedure rules

Criminal Procedure and Evidence Act (1927)

Zimbabwe’s Criminal Procedure and Evidence Act (Chapter 9:07) is the primary law governing the procedure for the administration of criminal justice. Though it does not currently address the use of AI in criminal proceedings, it does permit and define electronic evidence.

Under the Act, electronic evidence, defined as ‘evidence generated from a computer system or by means of information and communications technologies or electronic communications systems’ is admissible in court. Section 379E governs the admissibility of electronic evidence. In assessing the admissibility or evidentiary weight of the evidence, the Act requires that consideration be given to the reliability of the manner in which the evidence was generated, stored or communicated; the integrity of the manner in which the evidence was maintained; the manner in which the originator or recipient of the evidence was identified; or any other relevant factors. Such evidence shall also be subject to Zimbabwe’s authentication, integrity, and correctness rules. Zimbabwe’s Civil Evidence Act governs the admissibility of documents produced by computers as evidence. Section 13 states that a document shall be admissible if the party producing it proves that: (a) the document was produced by the computer during a period when the computer was used regularly to store or process information for the purposes of any activity regularly carried on over that period; and (b) over that period information of the kind contained in the document, or of the kind from which the information in the document is derived, was regularly supplied to the computer in the ordinary course of that activity; and (c) the information contained in the relevant part of the document reproduces or is derived from information supplied to the computer in the ordinary course of that activity; and (d) throughout the material part of that period the computer was operating properly or, if it was not, its failure to do so would not have affected the production of the document or the accuracy of its contents. Accordingly, a document which is admissible under this section may be ‘produced in evidence by any person who for the time being has custody of the document or is responsible for managing the activity for which the document was produced.’

Data protection legislation

Cyber and Data Protection Act (2021)

In 2021, Zimbabwe introduced the Cyber and Data Protection Act (Chapter 12:07), which establishes the country’s data protection framework. Section 379E, ‘Admissibility of Electronic Evidence’ mirrors the Criminal Procedure and Evidence Act, providing the factors to be evaluated in assessing the admissibility of evidential weight of electronic evidence. These factors include the reliability of the manner in which the evidence was generated, stored or communicated; the integrity of the manner in which the evidence was maintained; the manner in which the originator or recipient of the evidence was identified; and other relevant factors. The Section also requires the authentication of electronically generated documents as prescribed in the Rules of Evidence.

The Cyber and Data Protection Act also designates the Postal and Telecommunications Regulatory Authority of Zimbabwe as the Data Protection Authority.

The Cyber and Data Protection Act defines ‘personal information’ as information relating to a data subject, including personal identifying information, as well as health, educational, financial, criminal, or employment history, opinions expressed about an identifiable person, the individual’s personal views or opinions, and personal correspondence pertaining to home and family life. The Act empowers the Data Protection Authority to ‘regulate the manner in which personal information may be processed through the establishment of conditions for the lawful processing of data.’ The Act also outlines the duties of data controllers regarding the protection of personal information in ICT systems and delineates the rights of data subjects.

The Cyber and Data Protection Act faced significant scrutiny and outrage from human rights organisations following the arrest of journalist Blessed Mhlanga in February 2025. Mr. Mhlanga broadcast an interview and press conference on YouTube in which politician and war veteran, Blessed Geza called for the President of Zimbabwe, Emmerson Mnangagwa to resign. Thereafter, Mr. Mhlanga was arrested under Section 164 of the Cyber and Data Protection Act, which makes it an offence to use digital platforms to incite violence or property damage. Section 164 mandates up to five years in prison or a level 10 fine for offenders. This case has fueled debates over digital rights, free speech, and government surveillance.

Data Protection Regulations (2024)

In 2024, Zimbabwe adopted more detailed personal data handling rules through Statutory Instrument 155 of 2024, the Cyber and Data Protection (Licensing of Data Controllers and Appointment of Data Protection Officers) Regulations. These regulations require data controllers to appoint data protection officers within 90 days from the date of promulgation of these regulations or date of termination of the data protection officer’s contract, allow Postal and Telecommunications Regulatory Authority of Zimbabwe to provide public awareness and certification training, and prohibit automated decision-making affecting children’s rights. The regulations impose rules regarding the security of personal data. Section 16 states that personal data shall be processed securely by means of appropriate technical and organisational measures, which include: conducting risk assessments; development and implementation of organisational policies; implementation of appropriate physical and technical measures applied to all data phases; and empowering controllers and processors to put in place additional measures about the security of processing depending on the circumstances and risk posed by the processing. These measures are included to ensure the ‘security, confidentiality, integrity, and availability’ of the controllers’ systems and services and the personal data being processed. Section 3 of the regulations also state that no person shall process personal information unless they are licensed with the Authority. Notably, the regulations make no reference to artificial intelligence.

Cybersecurity laws

Cyber and Data Protection Act (2021)

The object of the Cyber and Data Protection Act (Chapter 12:07) is ‘to increase cyber security in order to build confidence and trust in the secure use of information and communication technologies by data controllers, their representatives and data subjects.’ Section 37 of the Act establishes a Cyber Security and Monitoring of Interception of Communications Centre situated in the office of the President. This Centre shall be manned, controlled and operated by technical experts designated by the agency. The functions of the Centre shall be to: (a) be the sole facility through which authorised interceptions shall be effected; (b) advise Government and implement Government policy on cybercrime and cyber security; (c) identify areas for intervention to prevent cybercrime; (d) coordinate cyber security and establish a national contact point available daily around-the-clock; (e) establish and operate a protection-assured whistle-blower system that will enable members of the public to confidentially report to the Centre cases of alleged cybercrime; (f) promote and coordinate activities focused on improving cyber security and preventing cybercrime by all interested parties in the public and private sectors; (g) provide guidelines to public and private sector interested parties on matters relating to awareness, training, enhancement, investigation, prosecution and combating cybercrime and managing cyber security threats; (h) oversee the enforcement of the Act to ensure that it is enforced reasonably and with due regard to fundamental human rights and freedoms; (i) provide technical and policy advice to the Minister; (j) advise the Minister on the establishment and development of a comprehensive legal framework governing cyber security matters.

Under the Act, in April 2026 Zimbabwe announced its plans to launch an ‘AI Cyber Shield’ within 12 months to combat rising cyber threats. The proposed AI Cyber Shield will complement the country’s national AI framework while also promoting cyber awareness among citizens. The AI Cyber Shield initiative will include a centralised AI-based fraud detection platform, training for 10,000 cybersecurity professionals, and a legal framework to guide the ethical use of AI.

The AI Cyber Shield announcement arose during the Cyberfraud and AI Summit held in Nyanga, Zimbabwe, which brought together security experts, policymakers, and technology innovators to explore the opportunities and risks associated with AI. At the Summit, Information Communication Technology Minister, Tatenda Mavetera, said that criminals are using AI and exploiting technologies such as deepfakes, automated phishing, voice cloning and adaptive malware, which are advancing faster than traditional cybersecurity systems. In response, the Government is moving to counter these increasingly sophisticated, AI-driven cyber threats.

Criminal Law (Codification and Reform) Act (2004)

Zimbabwe’s Criminal Law (Codification and Reform) Act (Chapter 9:23) is the primary law defining substantive offences in Zimbabwe. The Act does not define any crimes concerning AI. However, Chapter VIII of the Act outlines computer-related crimes.

Under the Act, ‘computer’ is defined as a ‘a device or apparatus or series of devices which, by electronic, electromagnetic, electromechanical or other means, is capable of one or more of the following: (a) receiving or absorbing data and instructions supplied to it; (b) processing data according to rules of instructions; (c) storing and additionally, or alternatively, reproducing data before or after processing the data; and includes the devices or apparatus or series of devices commonly known as automatic telling machines, electronic cash registers and point-of-sale tills; and any other device or apparatus used for the electronic processing of monetary transactions.’ The specific computer-related crimes include unauthorised access to or use of computers or computer networks, deliberate introduction of computer viruses, and unauthorised manipulation of computer programs.

• Section 163, Unauthorised access to or use of computer or computer network, criminalises intentionally accessing, destroying, altering, rendering useless, copying, transferring, obstructing, or interfering with a computer or computer network without authority from the owner. The punishment for this crime is a fine not exceeding level eight or imprisonment for a period not exceeding three years or both.
• Section 164, Deliberate introduction of computer virus into computer or computer network, criminalises the knowing introduction of any virus into any computer or computer network without authority from the owner, punishable by a fine not exceeding level eight or imprisonment for a period not exceeding three years or both.
• Section 165, Unauthorised manipulation of proposed computer programme, states that any person who fraudulently or mischievously creates, alters or manipulates any data, programme or system (or any part or portion thereof) which is intended for installation in a computer shall be liable to a fine not exceeding level eight or imprisonment for a period not exceeding three years or both.
• Section 166, Aggravating circumstances in relation to crimes under sections 163, 164 and 165, sets out the requirements for aggravating circumstances. If any of the computer-related crimes are found to be committed in aggravated circumstances, the punishments are increased to a fine not exceeding level twelve or imprisonment for a period not exceeding ten years or both.

Draft National Cybersecurity Strategy (2026)

Zimbabwe has also reportedly finalised a National Cybersecurity Strategy which is waiting cabinet approval as at July 2026. The Cybersecurity Strategy is described as an ‘overarching framework for protecting national digital assets, strengthening cyber resilience, and promoting a culture of cybersecurity across all sectors.’ The Minister of Information, Communication Technology, Postal and Courier Services stated that this development represents the Government’s ‘unwavering commitment to building a safe, secure, and trusted digital environment that supports innovation, economic growth, and citizen empowerment.’

Human rights

Zimbabwe’s legal framework is anchored in its Constitution, which stands as the supreme law of the land. Accordingly, the use of AI tools in criminal proceedings must comply with the following provisions:

• Article 56, which concerns ‘equality and non-discrimination’ and states that ‘all persons are equal before the law and have the right to equal protection and benefit of the law.’
• Article 57, which establishes that every person has the ‘right to privacy, which includes the right not to have their home, premises, or property entered without their permission; their person, home, premises, or property searched; their possessions seized; the privacy of their communications infringed; or their health condition disclosed.’
• Article 62, which concerns ‘access to information’ and states that every person has the right of access to any information in so far as the information is required in the interests of public accountability or for the exercise or protection of a right. Every person also has a right to the correction of information, or the deletion of untrue, erroneous or misleading information, which is held by the State, and which relates to that person.
• Article 69, which enshrines a person’s right to be tried before an ‘independent and impartial court’
• Article 70, which establishes a person’s right ‘to be presumed innocent until proven guilty.’
• Article 86, which concerns ‘limitation of rights and freedoms’ and, among others, states that no law may limit the ‘right to a fair trial.’

International human rights treaties to which Zimbabwe is a party may further influence how AI is used in criminal proceedings, including treaties which enshrine the right to a fair trial and rights to privacy, such as the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (Articles 14 and 17) and the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (Articles 16, 40).

Outlook

Zimbabwe’s National Artificial Intelligence Strategy (2026-2030), the country’s first comprehensive national framework for AI, indicates that Zimbabwe seeks to foster and develop the country’s AI capabilities across six pillars: (1) AI Talent and Capacity Development; (2) AI Infrastructure and Computational Sovereignty; (3) AI Adoption and Service Transformation; (4) AI Governance, Ethics and Regulatory Framework; (5) AI Research, Development and Innovation; and (6) AI International Collaboration and Diplomacy.

The Strategy outlines a vision of leveraging AI to drive economic growth, improve public-sector efficiency, and support innovation in priority sectors such as agriculture, healthcare, education, finance, and mining. There is no specific mention of how AI will be used in the justice sector. However, the strategy emphasises ethical AI principles that prioritise social justice and acknowledges the need for legal review mechanisms and to align AI use with existing laws.

In terms of future AI-specific legislation and regulation, the Strategy envisions:

1. The establishment of a flexible policy for AI development, deployment, and use, focusing on system classification, risk assessment, compliance, and enforcement.
2. A clear liability framework, modernised IP laws, ethical procurement regulations, and data governance reforms.
3. A ‘robust cybersecurity and AI safety strategies to mitigate risks from emerging technologies.’
4. Ethical AI guidelines that will focus on fairness, transparency, accountability, and human oversight, and human rights frameworks to safeguard privacy, and dignity (with an emphasis on ‘Ubuntu-Centred AI Ethics’).

The Strategy contemplates an AI implementation rollout in three phases: (1) first, Phase 1, the sprint, laying the foundation; (2) second, Phase 2, the build, constructing the core engine; and (3) third, Phase 3, the scale, national transformation.

The governance structure responsible for the Strategy’s implementation consists of three groups: (1) The AI Strategy Implementation Office, which operates within the lead ministry and is composed of specialists; (2) The National Digital Regulatory Committee, composed of experts, operates under the AI Strategy Implementation Office and is part of the Postal and Telecommunications Regulatory Authority of Zimbabwe; and (3) the Technical Working Groups, which focus on sector-specific solutions and are co-chaired by senior government officials and private sector leaders.

The Strategy acts as a policy roadmap, with its effectiveness dependent on implementation capacity, funding, and coordination among government, academia, and the private sector.

According to commentators, Zimbabwe’s National AI Strategy is among the most ambitious and expansive AI policy documents in Africa for two reasons: (1) It explicitly acknowledges the risks of AI, including reference to misinformation, deepfakes, and overreliance on foreign solutions; (2) It treats AI as a sovereignty issue, warning against ‘digital colonialism’ and reflecting a ‘deliberate attempt to reclaim control over data, infrastructure and value creation in an AI-driven global economy.’

CASES

Misuse of AI in legal filings

In a 2025 Zimbabwean Supreme Court case (Pulserate Investments (Pvt) Ltd v Andrew Zuze [SC 202/25]), a legal practitioner submitted court papers containing twelve non-existent case citations that were later found to have been generated by an AI system. When the issue was raised during the proceedings, the lawyer acknowledged that the citations had been produced using AI and apologised to the court. The Supreme Court of Zimbabwe declared such legal submissions as invalid and to be treated as a nullity.

In a 2023 case, S v Sixpence, S v Kuyaziwa, S v Gudhu, S v Siravhe, S v Chirewo, S v Kandeya [2023] ZWHHC 450 (18 October 2023), Judge Mutevedzi of the Harare High Court set out in his decision a criminal review of sentencing guidelines. Although the substance of matter did not involve the use of AI, Judge Mutevedzi acknowledged AI and how it may affect review processes in the future. In describing the sentencing guidelines review process, he stated, ‘[i]t is only now that the advent of the Integrated Electronic Case Management System (IECMS) has mechanised the administration of the process. The real review process however remains human driven. It appears it will be so unless the seemingly idle threat of the use of artificial intelligence in the adjudication of disputes comes to pass.’

Electronic evidence

In another case before the Supreme Court of Zimbabwe (Japajapa v State (41 of 2024) [2024] ZWSC 41 (2 February 2024)), the Court evaluated the appellant’s conviction and sentencing for the crime of incitement to commit public violence as defined in section 187(1) as read with section 36(1) of the Criminal Law (Codification and Reform) Act. The State’s case was based on a video clip uploaded to YouTube in which the appellant criticised election results. In reviewing the lower court’s decision, the Supreme Court considered the laws governing the admissibility of electronic and video evidence, including rulings from other countries such as South Africa and Namibia. The Supreme Court of Zimbabwe reversed the decision of the lower court and held that the state did not take into account all the mandatory factors set out in section 379E of the Cyber and Data Protection Act regarding the admissibility and evidential weight to be given to electronic evidence. The Supreme Court did not formally exclude the video as inadmissible evidence; it held that the lower court’s reliance on it without conducting the mandatory factors governing electronic evidence was in error. The judgement did not discuss deepfakes or AI-generated evidence in its analysis.