Zimbabwe has taken bold steps in aligning its laws with international human rights standards by criminalizing child marriage. On paper, this is progress: the law clearly recognizes child marriage as a gross violation of girls’ rights, undermining their health, education, and future. It reflects Zimbabwe’s commitments under international treaties to protect girls, promote gender equality, and uphold their sexual and reproductive health and rights. Yet despite these gains, the reality on the ground tells a different story. Child marriage remains widespread, particularly in rural communities. The gap between law and practice has never been more evident.
Criminalization alone has not dismantled the deep-rooted drivers of child marriage. Instead, families and communities adapt their practices to avoid detection; they move children to places where their age is unknown, falsify ages in the absence of birth certificates, or use threats including physical intimidation and witchcraft to silence whistle-blowers. Culture, religion, and unequal power relations continue to frame child marriage as “normal” or even “necessary,” overshadowing the voices of the law. For many, it is still tied to tradition, family honour, or economic survival far removed from how policymakers and rights advocates perceive it. This exposes a critical flaw in the law: it punishes the act but does not require the state to educate communities, raise awareness, or invest in prevention. As a result, the law often feels like an external imposition rather than a shared social contract with some communities viewing it as adoption of western standards at the expense of local practices.
Despite these challenges, laws matter; they send a powerful message that child marriage is unacceptable and must end. But legislation without cultural and social engagement risks alienating communities instead of inspiring them. Criminalization alone is seen as punitive, disconnected from lived realities. Child marriage is not only a legal violation; it is a socio-cultural, religious, and economic phenomenon. Unless these underlying drivers are addressed, the practice will simply go underground while girls continue to pay the price.
Activists must continue leveraging strategic litigation to raise awareness and reinforce the human rights standards that prohibit child marriage. Sustained community engagement is essential, as is framing child marriage through a gender and rights lens, to promote its abandonment. Critically, leadership must come from within practising communities, with opinion leaders championing change and legal compliance, even in the face of backlash.
Criminalizing child marriage was a necessary step, it sets the standard, and when violated, it ensures accountability by bringing perpetrators to justice. The law alone is not enough and more must be done. The fight must move beyond the courtroom and into the heart of communities where it persists. This requires dialogue, education, empowerment, and economic alternatives; solutions that respect cultural realities while safeguarding girls’ futures. Ending child marriage is not just about fulfilling international commitments; it is about securing justice, dignity, and opportunity for every girl. Only when laws are matched with genuine social transformation will we see a generation of girls free to dream, to learn, and to thrive.