Reacting to the Coronavirus disease (COVID-19), a number of countries globally introduced measures to control the pandemic. This was done through the declaration of states of public emergency, states of disaster and public health emergency. The declaration of states of emergency and disaster saw the enactment of Regulations which limited and derogated a number of constitutionally guaranteed rights. Noting a striking resemblance between a state of emergency and disaster, the article saw the need to have a comprehensive discussion on the law of state of emergency and disaster. For this article, it is important to distinguish between a state of emergency and disaster as their declaration call the executive to exercise its state powers. This article will look at the declaration of state of emergency and disaster in Zimbabwe. In the article, we analyse the scope of the declaration of a constitutional state of emergency and disaster, the conditions that necessitate for their declarations and the constraints of government’s powers in such instances. The article discusses why it was ideal for the Zimbabwean government to declare a state of disaster in place of a state of emergency when in it responded to the COVID-19 pandemic. In interrogating these issues, we reflect on the High Court of South Africa’s Freedom Front Plus Decision where the applicant challenged the constitutionality of the South African Disaster Management Disaster Act and argued that the South African government ought to have declared a state of emergency in-lieu-of a state of disaster. The article will explore the international human rights framework which provides the best standard in the limitation and derogation of human rights.