High Court Ruling Keeps Grain Import Levies In Place
The Government’s contested grain import levies will remain in force after the High Court struck off an urgent application by the Grain Millers Association of Zimbabwe (GMAZ), led by Tafadzwa Musarara, that sought to suspend the charges.
Justice Lucy Mungwari of the High Court Commercial Division in Harare ruled under case number HCH435/26 that the matter was “not urgent”, effectively allowing the levy system introduced through Statutory Instrument 87 of 2025 to continue unchanged.
The framework at the centre of the dispute sets levies on grain imports, with authorities arguing that the policy is meant to protect local farmers, strengthen irrigation capacity, and cut Zimbabwe’s dependence on foreign grain. The respondents in the case included the Agricultural Marketing Authority (AMA), the Ministers of Agriculture, Finance, Justice, and Industry and Commerce, the Zimbabwe Revenue Authority (ZIMRA), ZimStat and the Attorney General.
What The Court Decision Means For Grain Import Levies
The dismissal of the urgent application means Government can continue to collect levies on imported grain while any substantive challenges follow the normal court timetable. The ruling aligns with the stated position of Treasury, farmer unions and indigenous millers, who had backed the policy as a buffer for domestic producers facing cheaper imports.
In a letter dated 30 April 2026, Finance Secretary George Guvamatanga reaffirmed Treasury’s support for the levies as part of revised grain marketing arrangements for the 2025/26 summer season. He warned that pricing gaps between imported and locally produced grain were undermining producer viability, efforts to substitute imports, and broader macro-economic stability.
Government has designated AMA as the collecting agent for the levies, with proceeds earmarked for payments to farmers through the Grain Marketing Board (GMB) and for irrigation development programmes. Legal experts say the scheme is anchored in the AMA Act, which provides for “the imposition and collection of levies on producers, buyers and processors of agricultural products.”
FFA Explainer:
Grain import levies are fees charged by Government on maize, wheat or other grain brought into the country from abroad. By raising the cost of imports slightly, authorities hope to make local grain more competitive, encourage domestic production, and create a pool of funds for irrigation and other support services.
Farmers, Millers And The Politics Of Price
While the court’s finding focused on urgency rather than the merits of the policy, the decision immediately strengthened Government’s hand in ongoing debates over how to balance consumer prices with farmer incomes.
Authorities say about US$5.7 million has already been raised through the levy framework, with part of the funds directed to irrigation projects. For a smallholder maize grower in Mazowe or Gokwe, those investments can translate into more reliable water, a longer planting window, and reduced exposure to mid-season dry spells.
The Indigenous Grain Millers Association of Zimbabwe (IGMAZ) welcomed the ruling, calling it a progressive decision that protects Zimbabwe’s agrarian transformation agenda, food security objectives and local producers. The association has argued that SI 87 of 2025 remains central to supporting indigenous farmers, financing irrigation infrastructure and reducing reliance on external suppliers.
In Harare’s high-density suburbs, consumers may still worry about mealie-meal prices. Yet in many rural wards, farmers have long complained that cheap imports undercut local grain at the GMB and private depots. The levy framework is Government’s attempt to change that equation.
Linking Levies To Food Security And Value Addition
The policy fits into a broader narrative from the Mnangagwa administration about food self-sufficiency and industrialisation, themes echoed in national strategies such as the National Development Strategy 1 (NDS1), the African Union’s Agenda 2063, and the UN Sustainable Development Goals.
Earlier this month, President Emmerson Mnangagwa told the 392nd Ordinary Session of ZANU PF’s Politburo in Harare that Zimbabwe was repositioning itself in global value chains through value addition.
“Zimbabwe is steadily taking a seat within the global value chain space, not as a mere supplier of raw materials but as a competitive producer of value-added goods,” he said.
Speaker of Parliament Jacob Mudenda has also sounded the alarm about the country’s import appetite. He recently warned that Zimbabwe’s rising import bill threatened industrial growth and national sovereignty.
“The import bill continues to exert an inexorable stranglehold on the economy, draining foreign currency and steadily corroding the very foundations upon which national prosperity must be built,” Adv Mudenda said, noting that imports had risen from US$4.5 billion in 2019 to a projected US$10 billion in 2026.
That warning resonates far from Harare. In Mashonaland West, for example, A1 and communal farmers producing maize under irrigation along the Manyame River have watched imported grain arrive at urban supermarkets even in seasons when local granaries are reasonably stocked. For them, a levy that channels money back into smallholder irrigation schemes can feel like overdue recognition.
Zimbabwe Case Study: Irrigation Hopes In The Lowveld
In Mwenezi District, Masvingo Province, irrigation is the thin line between recurring drought and a reliable harvest. Along the banks of the Mwenezi River, a group of smallholders in Ward 5 have been reviving a community irrigation scheme, drawing on Government support and their own savings.
One of them, a farmer in her forties who has weathered several failed rainy seasons, says that any policy that pushes money towards irrigation matters more than headline politics.
“Pane nguva dzataibata maoko, tichingomirira mvura isingauye,” she said, describing seasons when fields lay bare, waiting for rain that never arrived. “Kana mari iyi yemalevy ichienda kumadiridziro, tinogona kurima kaviri pagore, tochengeta vana vari kuchikoro.”
Her priorities are simple: enough maize and small grains to feed her family, and surplus to sell to GMB or local millers at a price that covers fertiliser, seed and labour. Policies like SI 87 of 2025 will be judged in villages like hers by whether they deliver canals cleared, pumps repaired and electricity bills paid on time.
FFA Explainer:
Irrigation infrastructure includes canals, pumps, storage dams, centre pivots and drip systems that move water from rivers or boreholes to fields. For smallholders, even a small communal scheme can double or triple the number of months they can grow crops, creating income in the dry season.
Legal Backing And Future Battles
Legal experts who have weighed in on the levy framework point to the AMA Act as giving Government authority to impose and collect such charges on producers, buyers and processors of agricultural products. That statutory backing has encouraged AMA to treat levies not only as a revenue tool but as a policy lever to steer investment into priority areas like irrigation.
GMAZ’s legal challenge signalled concerns within parts of the milling industry about cost structures and competitiveness. While the urgent attempt has failed, the broader debate over the design, rate and use of levies is likely to continue.
Organisations that represent farmers, such as unions and producer associations, have largely framed the policy as overdue backing for local grain. Some indigenous millers, including IGMAZ members, argue that a strong domestic producer base gives millers more secure supplies than importing from volatile regional markets.
For policy-makers, the High Court’s stance on urgency offers breathing space to implement SI 87 of 2025 through AMA, ZIMRA and related agencies, even as they defend the statutory instrument in other forums.
Balancing Consumers, Farmers And The Fiscal Purse
The grain import levy sits at the intersection of three competing pressures: keeping food affordable for urban and peri-urban households; ensuring farmers get prices that justify the hard work of tilling, planting and harvesting; and reducing the strain on the national balance of payments.
Treasury’s intervention, captured in Guvamatanga’s April letter, suggests Government sees the levy as one tool among many to align those interests. It sits alongside contract farming, climate-smart inputs support, and efforts to rebuild strategic reserves at GMB.
For smallholders, especially women and youth who are increasingly starting agribusinesses in districts like Hurungwe, Chiredzi and Nkayi, stability in grain markets can open doors to finance. A clear, predictable levy regime, channelled transparently into irrigation and producer payments, can encourage banks and microfinance institutions to back farmers with medium-term credit for pumps, storage and mechanisation.
At the same time, consumer advocates and urban workers will watch closely for any signs that levies translate into higher prices for basics such as roller meal. Policymakers face the task of ensuring that the benefits of better-funded irrigation and stronger local production flow back to households in the form of reliable supply and fair pricing.
What Comes Next
The High Court has, for now, cleared the way for Government to stay the course on grain import levies. AMA, ZIMRA, GMB and line ministries now carry the responsibility of making the policy work on the ground — not just in legal arguments and policy papers, but in water reaching fields and grain reaching silos.
For the Mwenezi farmer waiting on a new pump, or the Mashonaland East youth running a small milling operation in Marondera, the real test of SI 87 of 2025 will lie in whether it helps them plant, harvest and trade with more certainty.
If the promised irrigation schemes rise from that US$5.7 million seedbed, the levy will not only be a line in a Statutory Instrument; it will be furrows of wet soil, green maize at tasselling, and granaries that stay full a little longer.
📲 Subscribe to our WhatsApp Channel to Get Our Updates On Your Mobile
About The Author
