Zimpapers Logo

Chief Justice Chidyausiku

Fidelis Munyoro Chief Court Reporter—
The Constitutional Court yesterday reserved judgment in the case of four Jehovah’s Witness parents and guardians of pupils attending Anglican-orientated Arundel School who are challenging the school’s requirement of chapel attendance. Four parents — Amos Makani, Mbiri Shiripinda, Plaxedes Chipangura and Daniel Sakupwanya — hold beliefs different to those of other Christian denominations.

They argued that compelling their children to attend chapel services violated their religious beliefs.

The full bench of the constitution led by Chief Justice Godfrey Chidyausiku heard submissions from both parties’ counsel and reserved judgment to a later date.

South African-based Advocate Tererai Mafukidze instructed by Messrs Joshua Shekede and Givemore Madzoka from Wintertons Legal Practitioners argued the matter for the four parents while Adv Adrian de Bourbon represented Arundel and the school head.

Adv Mafukidze argued that it was unconstitutional for the school to discriminate against the four pupils on the grounds of their religious beliefs and this was a violation of the children’s rights. He said it was unlawful for the four pupils to be forced to worship in a chapel full of religious symbols, unlike in the kingdom halls.

“The kingdom halls differ from other religious buildings and chapels in that they do not contain any religious symbols. Arundel chapel has religious symbols strewn all over,” argued Adv Mafukidze.

He submitted that the school authorities were obliged to respect the four’s religion in line with the constitution. The four pupils, he argued, should be excused from attending the chapel meetings.

“When the applicant’s daughters were admitted at the school they were made to sign a standard form,” said Adv Mafukidze.

“They indicated they are members of Jehovah’s Witnesses. Their applications were accepted notwithstanding their membership of the church.”

Adv Mafukidze accused the current school head of changing the previous exemptions granted to those with particular beliefs from attending chapel services on religious grounds.

But Adv de Bourbon urged the court to dismiss constitutional application. The four parents, he argued, waived one of their many religious rights when they allowed their children to be enrolled at the Anglican school. He accused them of fraudulently seeking to change the school’s principles to suit their needs.

Adv de Bourbon said there was no suggestion from the four parents that an attempt was made to persuade their daughters to change their religion or beliefs.