Zimbabwe Ban on Second-Hand Clothing Imports Sparks Debate

Policy under SI 59 of 2026 aims to support textiles, raises concerns for informal sector

Zimbabwe has introduced a ban on importing second-hand goods through Statutory Instrument (SI) 59 of 2026, a policy aimed at supporting the recovery of its textile and clothing manufacturing sectors. The decision has triggered discussions over its economic impact, particularly on informal traders and low-income households.

The ZANU-PF government’s policy to restrict imports of second-hand goods includes clothing, which has historically supported the country’s struggling textile manufacturing sector. The measure is intended as an intervention to aid the recovery of the near-dormant textiles and clothing manufacturing industries.

However, similar protectionist approaches have not produced the desired outcomes in the East African Community (EAC), raising questions about the effectiveness of the policy.

The Zimbabwe manufacturing sector’s contribution to GDP declined from nearly 20% in 1990 to around 7% by 2024. Economist Tafadzwa Mupingashato, a research fellow at the University of South Africa (UNISA), notes that supporting the recovery of the textile industry is critical to its survival.

“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The company, once prominent in the sector, has faced challenges since 2002 due to debt, outdated equipment, and competition. At one point, the textile industry was among the largest employers in Kadoma. Following closures, cotton production, which supports the spinning and weaving value chain, fell from a peak of 300,000 tonnes in the 1990s to under 80,000 tonnes in recent years.

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

Zimbabwe’s imports, with a total bill of $10bn, include second-hand clothing (mabhero), which amounted to $31m in 2024. New clothing imports from China stood at $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 apply to low-cost clothing imports from China.

The policy has drawn comparisons with similar efforts in other African countries. Some countries in the EAC had pledged in 2016 to phase out second-hand clothing imports by 2019, but only Rwanda implemented the policy.

Kenya, Uganda, Tanzania and Burundi reversed their plans under pressure linked to the African Growth and Opportunity Act (AGOA). Rwanda increased import tariffs on second-hand clothes from $0.20 per kilogramme to $2.50 and later to $4, effectively restricting 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 also introduced targeted VAT and import duty exemptions for textile investors and pursued a long-term strategy to transition from a low-income to a middle-income economy.

The outcomes in Rwanda were mixed. Domestic production increased modestly after the ban, but clothing prices did not fall immediately. “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,” he says.

Kenya and Uganda reversed their policies due to economic and political pressures. “Kenya had approximately $340m in apparel exports to the US under AGOA – too large a risk to absorb. Uganda’s informal vending sector, like Zimbabwe’s, was too politically exposed to permit an unpopular enforcement campaign.”

Zimbabwe does not have AGOA exposure.

Kenyan economist and University of Nairobi professor XN Iraki states that Kenya has not banned second-hand clothing imports (mitumba). “It is among the top importers in Africa. For countries that have banned second-hand clothes, it makes economic sense. One, it is about dignity: wearing clothes worn by someone [else] is undignified. Two, we could have fewer low-income earners if we developed textiles, like Korea and China,” Iraki says.

Analysts say the effectiveness of Zimbabwe’s ban depends on whether domestic production can meet demand. Economist Titus Mukove says the policy could benefit local manufacturers and related sectors if implemented successfully.

“There is going to be increased demand for cotton from producers, and this will revitalise the sector that has faced several challenges for years due to second-hand clothing imports. Textile manufacturers will benefit and local manufacturers might increase production to meet demand. We will be able to see the growth of the formal sector,” he adds.

Mukove also highlights ongoing structural challenges, including outdated machinery and high production costs. He notes that these issues could limit the benefits of the ban.

The policy is expected to impact low-income urban households that depend on second-hand clothing. “For ordinary citizens, there is going to be a negative impact mainly because it is informal traders who rely on the sale of used clothing. Low-income earners are unable to purchase new, expensive clothing,” says Mukove.

“A balanced approach to the ban combined with protectionism of local industries will assist in formalising the sector,” he adds, noting the need for government support.

Economist Trust Chikohora states that a full phase-out of used clothing imports requires a strong domestic apparel industry capable of large-scale production.

“The ban could create a huge gap in the economy and GDP because there are no industries to talk about. It could be a flawed policy, and we might need to reverse that,” he says, especially if no measures are in place to support workers transitioning out of the used-clothing trade.

“They will have problems trying to police people who will still be selling second-hand clothes,” Chikohora adds.