Zimbabwe hardens stance on used clothes

Zimbabwe has turned a long-signalled restriction on second-hand clothing into formal law, tightening its effort to shield domestic manufacturers even as economists and traders warn that the move could squeeze low-income consumers and deepen pressure on an already fragile apparel market. The measure is now enforced under Statutory Instrument 59 of 2026, which bars the import of second-hand clothes unless an importer holds a government permit issued under tightly controlled conditions.

The legal step gives formal backing to a policy direction that had already been aired by officials. In August 2025, Local Government and Public Works Minister Daniel Garwe publicly said authorities were prohibiting the importation of second-hand clothing and banning its sale in central business districts, linking the clampdown to the protection of formal businesses and wider law-enforcement concerns around informal vending. The new instrument shifts that stance from political declaration to enforceable trade regulation.

For Harare, the economic argument is straightforward. Lawmakers and industry advocates have for months described the continued influx of cheap second-hand garments, known locally as mabhero, as one of the forces weakening a manufacturing base that once supported large clothing and textile employers. In a March 2026 parliamentary debate on reindustrialisation, senators said companies were still struggling under the weight of used-clothing inflows, erratic utility supplies, foreign-currency shortages and weak local procurement, while also recalling that manufacturing had once contributed about 20% of GDP in earlier decades.

That industrial decline sits at the heart of the government’s case. Zimbabwe still grows cotton and retains parts of the old textile and garment chain, but Parliament’s own debates show policymakers remain concerned that mills, clothing factories and related suppliers have not recovered enough to compete with imported garments, whether used or new. Several legislators argued that reviving domestic production would help restore jobs, rebuild value addition and reduce reliance on external suppliers.

Yet the policy’s timing is already drawing scrutiny. Reporting on the gazetted rules said market watchers questioned whether the local clothing value chain is strong enough to replace the supply that second-hand traders currently provide. The same coverage noted that cotton production remains weak, textile manufacturing capacity is limited, machinery is dated and cheap new clothing imports continue to dominate store shelves, suggesting that banning used apparel alone may not cure the industry’s underlying problems.

Trade data points to a more complicated picture than the politics alone suggests. World Bank trade data based on UN Comtrade shows Zimbabwe imported about $31 million worth of “worn clothing and other worn textile articles” in 2024. By contrast, a separate report cited clothing imports from China at roughly $1.37 million in 2024, though that narrower figure appears to refer to a more limited category and underlines how difficult it can be to compare different trade classifications directly. What is clearer is that imported apparel, both second-hand and low-cost new garments, remains embedded in Zimbabwe’s market.

Academic research suggests Zimbabwe is confronting a dilemma seen across much of sub-Saharan Africa. A 2025 peer-reviewed study by King’s College London’s Andrew Brooks found that more than 24 billion items of used clothing were exported globally in 2024 in a trade worth over $4.9 billion. The paper argues that such imports often provide the main source of affordable clothing in poorer countries, while also undermining local industry and burdening developing economies with the downstream effects of fast-fashion overproduction.

That tension is likely to define the next phase of the policy. Supporters of the ban will argue that Zimbabwe cannot rebuild textile mills and garment factories while imported second-hand clothes retain such a large footprint in urban markets. Critics will counter that protection without industrial repair, investment in machinery, working capital, reliable electricity and stronger cotton-to-clothing integration may simply shift hardship onto consumers and informal traders. Parliament’s own debates echo both realities: used-clothing inflows are seen as damaging to local production, but the country’s factories are also being held back by structural weaknesses far beyond import competition alone.