The Mines and Minerals Amendment Bill has been praised by some as a step forward, but for Emerging Miners Association of Zimbabwe (EMAZ) President Chatyoka Hyde, it is a far cry from what Zimbabwe’s small-scale miners need, Mining Zimbabwe can report.
By Rudairo Mapuranga
In a powerful critique, Hyde told Mining Zimbabwe that the Bill continues a legacy of exclusion, duplication, and superficial recognition of the country’s most active mining players.
“The truth is, this Bill was never crafted with the small-scale miner in mind,” said Hyde. “Its origins go back to 1999, and it was bankrolled by the Canadians. At that time, it was built around the needs of corporate capital—not our people on the ground.”
While the government and some policymakers have touted the 2025 version of the Bill as progressive because it now ‘recognises’ small-scale miners, Hyde disagrees.
“That recognition is not genuine. The Act already licenses small-scale miners—we didn’t need this Bill to do that. What the Bill does is try to define a ‘small-space miner,’ not a small-scale miner in the true operational and economic sense,” he said.
What Should Define a Small-Scale Miner?
Hyde believes that any proper legal definition of a small-scale miner must go beyond land size. It should reflect the nature of investment, machinery used, energy sources, technical expertise, and production volumes.
“If you’re using a jackhammer and diesel power, how are you the same as someone with a processing plant and 24/7 electricity? Our sector is diverse. Some of us are growing, others are starting. A legal definition should reflect that.”
He argues that scale should be measured holistically—from the level of capital injection to the sophistication of technology and energy demand.
“You can’t claim a miner is large-scale simply because of the size of the land. Look at the resources, the skillset, the equipment. Many of us are still manually breaking rocks with pickaxes,” Hyde said.
Overregulation and Duplication
One of the major concerns EMAZ raises is the overregulation and duplication created by the Bill. Hyde explains that in the past, a miner would receive a license and immediately begin operations. Today, however, the process has become long-winded and increasingly frustrating.
“Now, even after getting your license, you must also go to EMA (Environmental Management Agency), submit for an Environmental Impact Assessment, and conduct consultations with local farmers. Fair enough—environmental protection is necessary. But why does the Bill act as if EMA does not already exist?” he questioned.
According to Hyde, the current system already provides enough safeguards to protect farmers and the environment.
“When a miner submits to EMA, the farmer’s interests are automatically considered. You are told where not to mine—the homestead, the roads, the fields, the boreholes. EMA certifies everything after ensuring you’ve addressed all concerns,” he said.
He believes the Bill, instead of trusting the existing EMA framework, adds another unnecessary layer by requiring further permissions from farmers, even after EMA approval.
“This is pure duplication. EMA already demands community consultations and ensures compliance. Why should a miner be blocked from operating just because a farmer with no mining knowledge refuses consent—even after EMA says it’s okay?”
A Call for Dialogue, Not Division
Hyde called for the Farmers Union and the Miners Federation to sit down and agree on a framework that promotes coexistence and shared benefit—not conflict.
“We are not enemies. The problem is this Bill turns us into adversaries. Instead of criminalising miners, let’s agree on how both parties can benefit from activities on the land. If a farmer wants something, let’s talk about what percentage of production could go toward local community development,” he said.
Restrictions That Don’t Reflect Growth
Beyond duplication, Hyde is also concerned about the general tone of the Bill, which he feels is too restrictive.
“There’s this underlying assumption that small-scale miners are a problem to be controlled. That we’re chaotic, illegal, and dangerous. But we are contributing over 60% to gold production. We’re employing thousands. Why is the law designed to fence us in instead of lifting us up?” he asked.
Hyde also warned that such overregulation could stifle the growth of upcoming miners.
“Some of us want to formalise. We want to grow. But the Bill makes that harder. Too many steps, too many fees, too many unclear definitions. That’s not how you build an industry. That’s how you kill it slowly.”
EMAZ Wants the Law to Be Grounded in Reality
For Hyde and the thousands of miners he represents, the message is simple: a good law should reflect reality, not just theory. It should make it easier to formalise, easier to produce, and easier to operate responsibly.
“This country is built on minerals. Yet the people digging them out are treated like trespassers. The Bill must change that. Let it empower us—not criminalise us,” said Hyde.
As Parliament continues to engage with stakeholders on the final shape of the Mines and Minerals Amendment Bill, voices like Hyde’s will be critical in ensuring the legislation doesn’t leave behind the very people who are holding up Zimbabwe’s mining economy.
