By Tendai Rwodzi & Carlos N Hove
The Insurance and Pensions Commission Amendment Act, 2026 (“IPEC Amendment Act”) introduces significant reforms to Zimbabwe’s insurance, pensions, and medical aid regulatory framework. These reforms seek to strengthen governance, expand regulatory oversight and shift towards prudential regulation and enhanced protection of policyholders, pension beneficiaries, and medical aid members. Against this background, this article highlights some of the key amendments introduced by the Amendment Act and considers their practical implications for regulated entities and industry participants.
Enhanced regulatory powers of Insurance and Pensions Commission of Zimbabwe (IPEC)
A central feature of the IPEC Amendment Act’s expanded regulatory framework is the significant enhancement of the powers and supervisory mandate of the Insurance and Pensions Commission of Zimbabwe (“IPEC”). Section 3A of the IPEC Amendment Act introduces the objects or purpose of IPEC. Beyond its traditional role of being a Regulator, IPEC now expressly exists to promote consumer protection, transparency, accountability, and the development of the insurance and pensions sectors. This development is significant in that it repositions IPEC from being merely a technical regulator to being a policy oriented authority with a broader prudential and market shaping function. Regulated entities should anticipate heightened regulatory engagement, including increased focus on:
- governance standards;
- conduct risk;
- customer treatment;
- operational resilience; and
- financial soundness.
The introduction of the purpose of IPEC in section 3A serves as an important statutory interpretive guide for Courts and other judicial tribunals. For instance, in dispute resolution, Courts and tribunals can now be guided by section 3A with a clear legislative framework against which the lawfulness, reasonableness, and proportionality of regulatory decisions by IPEC may be assessed. In this respect, section 3A not only defines the existence of IPEC but also strengthens judicial oversight by anchoring administrative action according to the defined statutory purpose of IPEC.
Furthermore, section 4 of the Act significantly expands the function and regulatory powers of IPEC. IPEC is now mandated to research and recommend the adoption of international best practices, signalling alignment with global regulatory standards particularly by facilitating risk based oversight and strengthening consumer protection. Further, IPEC is now empowered to register and supervise the National Social Security Authority (NSSA), as well as other key market participants such as medical aid societies, mutual insurance societies, actuaries, asset managers, credit rating agencies.
Regulation of Associates and Group Structures
The regulatory powers of IPEC now extend to insurance brokers, fund administrators and their “associates” that is, their holding or subsidiary entities including the persons exercising direct or indirect control within the entities such as shareholders. The Act introduces a clearer concept of “control”, to include circumstances where a person:
- holds 10% or more of the shares or voting rights in an entity;
- has the ability to appoint or remove directors; or
- is capable of materially influencing the affairs of the entity.
Collectively, these amendments significantly enhance IPEC’s ability to conduct group-wide supervision and increase scrutiny of ownership structures, beneficial ownership arrangements, and related-party relationships. Entities operating within group structures may therefore face increased disclosure and governance obligations. On practical level this will entail that existing contracts should therefore be reviewed for approval preconditions, termination triggers, regulatory access rights, and information-production obligations.
Further, the express regulation of “associates” is a critical tool in addressing unclear control structures thereby mitigating the practice of exploiting loopholes, gaps, or inconsistencies within a regulatory framework. This also limits the ability of entities to evade scrutiny through complex corporate structures, thereby reinforcing prudential oversight by IPEC.
Regulation of Medical Aid Societies by IPEC
Prior to the Insurance and Pensions Commission Amendment Act, 2026, medical aid societies were primarily regulated under the Medical Services Act [Chapter 15:13] and were not subject to the same extensive prudential supervision framework applicable to insurers and pension funds under the Insurance and Pensions Commission Act [Chapter 24:21].
The Amendment Act therefore represents a significant shift in the regulatory landscape by expressly extending and strengthening the supervisory, investigative, governance, and enforcement powers of IPEC over medical aid societies and their associates. The practical effect is that medical aid societies are no longer peripheral participants in the insurance ecosystem. They become part of the core regulatory constituency directly supervised by IPEC.
Like other regulated entities falling under IPEC supervision, the amendments do not merely regulate medical aid societies but also extend to associates of medical aid societies. The newly inserted definition of “associate” covers:
- subsidiaries;
- holding companies;
- sister companies within the same group;
- companies in which the regulated entity is the largest shareholder; and
- persons capable of directly or indirectly controlling management or policy
The amendments effectively bring medical aid societies within a more robust prudential regulatory framework akin to that applicable to insurers and pension funds, particularly in relation to:
- group-wide supervision;
- governance oversight;
- information production obligations;
- regulatory investigations;
- asset disposal controls; and
- enhanced compliance and enforcement mechanisms
Policyholder and Pensions and Provident Fund Members Protection Fund
The creation of a Policyholder and Pensions and Provident Fund Members Protection Fund in terms of section 23F is a welcome development. Perhaps one of the most significant reforms. The fund is a compensation mechanism created as a financial safety net for beneficiaries. The fund receives its capital from contributions by insurers and pension schemes, unclaimed benefits, investments including a budget appropriated by Parliament and other streams of capital. The fund pays compensation to beneficiaries in the event of an entity becoming insolvent/bankrupt and pays out unclaimed benefits whenever a claim is made. This is significant reform in that it closes the protection gap and shifts the risk from the beneficiary to the fund. The fund may be a model adopted from the banking sector under the Deposit Protection Corporation. However, it must be understood that the fund’s ultimate success depends on the adequacy of its streams of capital. Hence, the true extent of the protection and guarantee to beneficiaries has to be tested in a live economic environment.
Governance Reforms
The Amendment Act also introduces significant governance reforms aimed at strengthening accountability, transparency, independence, and regulatory oversight within the insurance and pensions sector. The Amendment Act expands conflict-of-interest provisions, and establishes a clearer definition of “control” and “controlling stake” in regulated entities. The amendments further strengthen governance structures by requiring the establishment of key Board committees, including finance, risk management, audit, and remuneration committees, while also prescribing competency-based requirements for Board appointments. In addition, the expanded regulation of associates and group structures enhances scrutiny of ownership arrangements, beneficial ownership, and related-party relationships. Collectively, these reforms are intended to promote stronger corporate governance practices, improve regulatory transparency, and reinforce prudential supervision within the insurance and pensions sector.
Information powers and regulatory cooperation
Prior to the amendment, section 23 allowed the Commissioner to require information only from insurers, mutual insurance societies, pension and provident funds, and insurance brokers.
The original section 23 provided that :
The Commissioner may, from time to time, direct insurers, mutual insurance societies, pension and provident funds and insurance brokers to furnish him with such information and statistics as the Commissioner may require in regard to insurance and pension matters.
Several characteristics are immediately apparent. The Commissioner could only require information; and statistics. The section did not expressly provide for investigations; forensic inquiries; examination of associates; asset preservation; tracing of related-party transactions.
The original section 23 created no direct offence for non-compliance. Consequently, the Commission’s power depended largely on administrative cooperation and other enforcement provisions contained elsewhere in the legislative framework.
The amendment transforms section 23 into a far more powerful supervisory tool. The Commissioner may now require information from:
- insurers;
- pension funds;
- provident funds;
- medical aid societies; and
- any person conducting insurance or pension-related business.
Following the amendment, the class of persons who may be compelled to provide information has been widened to include “any other person conducting insurance and pension-related business”. This phrase is broad enough that administrators, outsourced service providers and possibly certain group support entities should assume they may be reached by a request.
Failure to provide information in terms of section 23 now attracts imprisonment up to two years; a level seven fine; or both. The amendment therefore converts what was previously a largely administrative information request into a coercive regulatory obligation backed by criminal sanctions.
Appeals and Ministerial Oversight
The Amendments introduce a formal statutory appeal mechanism in relation to decisions made by IPEC.The appeal process is introduced through the insertion of section 32C into the Insurance and Pensions Commission Act [Chapter 24:21], which provides that:
“Any person who is aggrieved by the decision of the Commission in terms of this Act may lodge an appeal with the Minister within fourteen days from the date the decision is made.”
The amendment therefore establishes a right for any person affected by a decision of IPEC to challenge that decision before the Minister responsible for Finance, Economic Development and Investment Promotion.
The provision applies broadly to decisions made by IPEC under the Act and may include decisions relating to:
- supervision and regulation of regulated entities;
- compliance directives;
- information production requirements;
- asset disposal approvals or restrictions;
- investigations;
- governance-related determinations; and
- other regulatory or administrative decisions made in terms of the Act.
In practical terms, the amendment creates an internal administrative review mechanism through which regulated entities and affected persons may seek reconsideration of decisions made by IPEC.
The introduction of the appeal process forms part of the broader regulatory framework established by the Amendment Act, which strengthens IPEC’s supervisory and enforcement powers while simultaneously providing a statutory mechanism for administrative review of decisions made under the Act.
Conclusion
The 2026 Amendment represents a deliberate legislative shift from a relatively fragmented regulatory approach to a comprehensive prudential supervision model. Medical aid societies are now treated in much the same way as insurers and pension funds, becoming subject to registration, supervision, information-gathering powers, investigations, governance requirements, asset-preservation controls and enforcement sanctions.
Collectively, these amendments reflect a clear legislative intention to strengthen governance standards, reinforce director independence, and enhance accountability within the insurance and pensions sector. From a practical perspective, regulated entities and other market participants should proactively review their governance structure and internal compliance frameworks to ensure alignment with the amended provisions.
Viewed as a whole, the amendment appears to pursue five policy objectives:
- Consumer Protection
The Act seeks to strengthen protection directed primarily toward persons who utilise or benefit from services within the insurance, pensions, and medical aid sectors as these sectors are now more intense supervision
- Governance Reform
The introduction of independent directors, conflict-of-interest controls and expanded definitions of control seeks to improve governance standards.
- Transparency
Asset registers, disclosure obligations and expanded information-gathering powers increase transparency.
- Financial Stability
Restrictions on asset disposals and supervision of associates aim to preserve the financial soundness of medical aid societies.
- Regulatory Consolidation
The amendment consolidates regulatory oversight by bringing medical aid societies more firmly within the same supervisory architecture as insurers and pension funds.