Getting Title Deed Reform Right

The modernisation of Zimbabwe’s title deed system may be necessary, but how reform is implemented matters just as much as the reform itself. Statutory Instrument 76 of 2025 raises important questions that deserve careful public discussion. 

Zimbabweans are not opposed to the concept of modernisation. A large segment of the population recognises that the country cannot indefinitely depend on outdated paper systems, particularly when it comes to something as important as property ownership. In fact, many citizens would welcome a more streamlined, safer and reliable system for issuing title deeds. The reality of property fraud is difficult to ignore. Incidents of double sales have been reported over the years, and disputes involving forged title deeds are not uncommon. Individuals who have engaged in disputed property transactions understand that weaknesses in record-keeping create opportunities for malpractice. In this context, the rationale behind the new regulations relating to title deeds becomes easier to appreciate.

However, the primary concern is not whether reform is necessary. The concern lies in how it is implemented and how the burden of implementation is distributed.

According to Statutory Instrument 76 of 2025, government introduced new Deeds Registries Regulations providing for the validation of existing paper title deeds before the issuance of what are termed “securitised” title deeds. These new deeds are intended to be digitally backed and incorporated into a modernised system. The stated objective is to strengthen the integrity of ownership records and reduce fraud within the property registration system.

The idea, at face value, appears sensible. The discomfort begins when one considers the practical implications for ordinary citizens.In a country where property ownership often involves detailed administrative processes and where many citizens have, over time, encountered practical challenges relating to records, documentation and compliance requirements, government has introduced a framework requiring citizens to participate in a process to validate documents that were originally issued through state processes. This has naturally caused many people to pause and ask difficult, yet entirely legitimate, questions.

If government issued title deeds in the first place, why should the burden of revalidation now rest so heavily on citizens? That question should not be dismissed as resistance to reform. It is, at its core, a governance question.

The Deeds Registry was established to maintain the integrity and accuracy of property records. Citizens purchased homes, inherited properties, paid municipal rates, settled taxes and relied on documents issued under the authority of the state. It is, therefore, understandable that many now feel they are being drawn into an administrative clean-up exercise for problems that were not of their making.

To be fair, government may reasonably argue that systems evolve. Paper records deteriorate over time, while fraud becomes increasingly sophisticated. Digitisation is therefore necessary. There is merit in that argument. Many countries have transitioned to electronic land registries for similar reasons. Zimbabwe cannot realistically remain dependent on legacy systems while much of the world moves towards secure digital registries.Even so, public policy is ultimately experienced through people’s lived realities.Consider the pensioner in Dzivaresekwa or Mufakose who has lived in the same house for more than forty years and has little familiarity with online systems. Consider scattered families attempting to regularise a deceased parent’s estate after important documents have gone missing over time. Consider Zimbabweans living abroad who already face practical difficulties relating to paperwork, powers of attorney and travelling home to resolve administrative matters. Then consider families who may have lost records during relocations, evictions, economic hardship or periods of institutional disorganisation.

For many Zimbabweans, property ownership has never been simple. The process already involves municipal issues, rates clearances, legal costs, paperwork and numerous administrative hurdles. Introducing an additional compliance process, even one that may be well intentioned, will understandably create anxiety.

The timing of the reform has also raised understandable questions. Much of the public discussion has centred around the reported 24-month compliance period associated with the regulations. Many people have noted that while the regulations were gazetted in July 2025, the statutory instrument also indicates that implementation will take effect on a date to be fixed by the Minister through a subsequent statutory instrument. Citizens deserve clarity on precisely when obligations begin, rather than relying on speculation or social media commentary. Effective communication becomes especially important when reforms of this scale are introduced.

The larger concern, however, relates to fairness and preparedness.

Before citizens are expected to move swiftly towards compliance, has government fully reconciled and cleaned its own records? Is the Deeds Registry adequately prepared for what could become a large national exercise? Are sufficient systems, trained personnel and safeguards already in place to reduce delays, confusion or opportunities for corruption? Anyone familiar with governance and risk management understands that pressure combined with bureaucracy often produces unintended consequences. A process of this scale could quickly become frustrating if long queues emerge, records cannot easily be located, systems experience delays, or ordinary citizens find themselves moving between offices while trying to validate ownership of homes they may have occupied for decades.This is where careful implementation becomes essential.

People are generally more willing to support reform when they feel they are being treated as partners in the process rather than participants expected to shoulder the consequences of longstanding administrative weaknesses. Most Zimbabweans are not opposed to progress. What many want is reassurance that they will not be unfairly burdened for problems that developed over many years.

Successful reforms tend to build trust. Poorly managed reforms often create frustration, resistance and uncertainty.

In truth, the digitisation of title deeds is not inherently problematic. Many professionals in governance, risk management, auditing and property administration would likely agree that a secure and modernised registry is necessary. The real test will lie in whether implementation reflects the practical realities facing ordinary Zimbabweans and whether the process is ultimately experienced as fair, accessible and credible.

-------------------------------------------

Charles Munkuli is a Chartered Accountant and Registered Auditor and writes in his personal capacity on Governance and Public Policy.