Kariba residents sue government over ferry crisis following deadly Mbuya Nehanda capsizing

On August 11, a government-operated ferry called the Mbuya Nehanda capsized on Lake Kariba, killing 97 people. The vessel, more than forty years old, was traveling from Kariba toward Chalala when it went down near Long Island. Investigators later determined it may have been carrying nearly twice its authorized capacity of 90 passengers—somewhere between 114 and 180 people, depending on the count, along with an unknown number of children and cargo. The disaster was declared a State of Disaster by President Emmerson Mnangagwa. One government official, Ignatius Chiome, the RIDA Kariba district clerk and acting district head, was remanded in connection with culpable homicide charges. The State alleged that administrative failures, overloading, and breaches of operational safety procedures all contributed to the accident.

Weeks after the capsizing, two fishermen approached the High Court in Chinhoyi with an urgent application demanding that the government provide adequate, safe, and reliable ferries on Lake Kariba. Tonderai Ndevani, 39, lives in Batonga Township in Kariba but his parents and two siblings live in Mola, a rural area under Chief Mola. Chilumbo Mudenda lives under Chief Sinakatenge in Binga but regularly travels to Kariba town to visit relatives and buy supplies. Both men depend on ferry transport to maintain family and commercial ties across the lake. The application names the Minister of Transport and Infrastructural Development, the Rural Infrastructure Development Agency (RIDA), and the Minister of Local Government and Public Works as respondents, seeking orders that compel them to provide ferries complying with safety requirements under the Inland Waters Shipping Act.

The core problem is simple: the Mbuya Nehanda was the only affordable and reasonably fast way for isolated communities on either side of Lake Kariba to reach each other. For Ndevani, the ferry journey from Batonga to Mola took between two and three hours and cost between $10 and $15. The alternative road route—traveling from Kariba to Karoi, then to Siakobvu, and finally to Mola—costs between $40 and $45 one way and takes about ten hours. Public transport between Siakobvu and Mola is unreliable, forcing travelers to wait for private vehicles or board trucks. "I cannot afford the US$40 to US$45 fare to travel to Mola by road and it takes a copious amount of time to get there as compared to using the ferry which takes a fraction of the time at a fraction of the price," Ndevani said in his court papers.

After the disaster, the government did not introduce a replacement ferry. Instead, a private operator called Most High Ferries commissioned the MV Silverstone on September 18, a vessel with a capacity of only 60 passengers. The applicants argue this is fundamentally inadequate. According to the 2022 Population and Housing Census, 45,774 people live across 12 wards in the Kariba Rural Constituency. The scale of that population, the applicants contend, cannot be reasonably served by a single small ferry. More troubling still is the risk that passengers, desperate for transport and facing long waits, could again be tempted to overload a vessel. "If this Honourable Court does not intervene on an urgent basis, the Applicants and other members of the Kariba Community would be unable to move safely and affordably through and across the Lake Kariba," the application states. "More disconcertingly, there is a reasonable likelihood that the crews and operators and desperate travelers including the Applicants may be tempted to overload the ferry due to the lack of alternative ferry services and unmet demand."

The applicants invoke sections 51 and 66(2)(a) of Zimbabwe's Constitution, arguing that the continued absence of adequate ferry services infringes the rights to dignity and freedom of movement. They contend that the State has a constitutional obligation not merely to refrain from interfering with freedom of movement but to take positive steps to facilitate its exercise. In Kariba, where crossing the lake is the most practical means of reaching some rural communities, providing a safe, reliable, and affordable ferry service is necessary to fulfill that obligation. The applicants further argue that the government cannot simply outsource this constitutional duty to the private sector. "The Respondents cannot outsource this constitutional duty to private entities," Ndevani said. "Private entities and players only serve to complement already existing state or government efforts." They also warn that reliance on a privately operated ferry creates another vulnerability: the operator could withdraw the service at any time for commercial reasons, leaving residents stranded.

Ndevani argues that the issue extends beyond his own difficulty in visiting his family. "I submit that there is inherent public interest in the matter because the capsizing of the Mbuya Nehanda ferry is a national disaster and tragedy," he said. The ferry was the only affordable link between Kariba town, rural Kariba, Chalala, and parts of Binga, making the availability of safe replacement services an issue affecting entire communities. The applicants are proceeding under section 85(1)(d) of the Constitution, which permits a person acting in the public interest to approach the courts where fundamental rights are being or are likely to be infringed.

In their provisional order, the applicants ask the High Court to compel the respondents to provide compliant ferries within one month. If permanent replacements cannot immediately be procured, they want the government to provide interim ferries while the procurement process continues. They are also seeking a requirement that the government submit monthly reports to the Registrar of the High Court detailing its progress in procuring, purchasing, or otherwise making available replacement ferries. For the final order, they want the court to declare that failure by the respondents to provide adequate ferries on the routes served by the Mbuya Nehanda violates the constitutional right to freedom of movement and the right to dignity. Ndevani deliberately allowed time for rescue operations, mourning, and the government to mobilize resources after the August 11 disaster before approaching the court. The September 18 commissioning of the MV Silverstone, he argues, demonstrated that the available response was inadequate. The matter has been brought as urgent and is yet to be set down for hearing.