The ZANU-PF government has introduced a policy to ban importing second-hand goods, which will have devastating effects on the informal sector. The ban includes clothing, which boosted the country’s struggling textile manufacturing sector.

Zimbabwe’s ban through Statutory Instrument (SI) 59 of 2026 was put in place as a policy intervention to facilitate the recovery of its almost-dormant textiles and clothing manufacturing sectors, even though similar protectionist policies have not worked in the East African Community (EAC).

The Zimbabwe manufacturing sector’s share of the GDP collapsed from nearly 20% in 1990 to around 7% by 2024.

Protecting the recovery of the textile industry is key to its survival, says economist Tafadzwa Mupingashato, a research fellow at the University of South Africa (UNISA).

“David Whitehead Textiles in Kadoma and Chegutu stands to be the primary beneficiary of the policy if the ban on second-hand clothes holds, as the company is receiving $20m in fresh capital,” Mupingashato tells The Africa Report.

The once vibrant company has been struggling since 2002 due to debts, ageing equipment and competition.

The textile industry was once among the largest employers in Kadoma. When they shut down, cotton output, which feeds the spinning and weaving value chain, plummeted from the peak of 300,000 tonnes in the 1990s to under 80,000 tonnes in recent years.

However, there has been incremental improvement, says Mupingashato. “It is against that backdrop that the government framed SI 59 of 2026 as a necessary intervention.”

With a staggering $10bn import bill, Zimbabwe’s imports of second-hand clothes (mabhero) stood at $31m in 2024, while new clothing imports from China were $1.37m, according to UN Comtrade data.

“That is a 22-to-1 gap. When you remove second-hand clothes, that gap becomes a supply vacuum that domestic manufacturers cannot fill,” he says.

The ban does not affect cheap imported Chinese clothing.

Zimbabwe is not the first country in Africa to pursue this policy, but political pressure, heavy reliance on second-hand clothes by low-income earners, and retaliation internally and by suppliers of these used clothes in developed countries derailed the initiative.

Some countries in the EAC collectively pledged in 2016 to phase out second-hand clothing imports by 2019, but only Rwanda followed through with the policy.

Kenya, Uganda, Tanzania and Burundi reversed the decision under US pressure linked to the African Growth and Opportunity Act (AGOA). But Rwanda raised import tariffs on second-hand clothes from $0.20 per kilogramme to $2.50 and eventually $4, effectively prohibiting imports.

“The US responded by suspending Rwanda’s AGOA preference, costing the country significant apparel revenue. Rwanda endured this because it had a dominant political settlement that could absorb popular resistance,” says Mupingashato.

Rwanda paired the ban with targeted value-added tax (VAT) and import duty exemptions for textile investors and had a long-term vision of moving from a low-income to middle-income status that it was willing to compromise.

For Rwanda, the results are mixed. After the ban on second-hand clothing imports, domestic production was modestly increased, but clothing prices did not fall immediately, he says.

“Women in the informal sector lost their livelihoods, and second-hand clothing imports still crept back through Uganda, which re-exports to Rwanda through EAC’s customs union. By 2023, Rwanda was still recording $664,000 in worn clothing imports despite the ban.”

Source: theafricareport