Supreme Court of Zimbabwe

Last updated

Supreme Court of Zimbabwe
Supreme Court of Zimbabwe
17°49′32″S31°03′08″E / 17.8256°S 31.0523°E / -17.8256; 31.0523
Established18 April 1980
(43 years ago)
 (1980-04-18) [1]
Location Harare, Zimbabwe
Coordinates 17°49′32″S31°03′08″E / 17.8256°S 31.0523°E / -17.8256; 31.0523
Composition methodPresidential nomination with Judicial Service Commission confirmation
Authorized by Constitution of Zimbabwe
Website www.zimlii.org
Chief Justice of Zimbabwe
CurrentlyVacant
Since15 May 2021

The Supreme Court of Zimbabwe is the highest court of order and the final court of appeal in Zimbabwe.

Contents

The judiciary is headed by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court who, like the other justices, is appointed by the President on the advice of the Judicial Service Commission. It has original jurisdiction over alleged violations of fundamental rights guaranteed in the constitution and appellate jurisdiction over other matters.

The Supreme Court is separate from the High Court of Zimbabwe.

Justices

The Chief Justice is Luke Malaba since 27 March 2017. The Chief Justice and the puisne justices, ranked in order of seniority are:

JusticeSworn inAppointerRef.
Luke Malaba (Chief Justice)27 March 2017 Robert Mugabe
Elizabeth Gwaunza (Deputy Chief Justice)2002
Antonia Guvava November 2013
Chinembiri Bhunu 16 September 2015
Susan Mavangira 16 September 2015
Tendai Uchena 16 September 2015
Lavender Makoni 11 May 2018 Emmerson Mnangagwa [2]
Charles Hungwe 30 June 2019 [3]
Nicholas Mathonsi 30 June 2019 [3]
Felistus Chatukuta 3 June 2021 [4]
Alfas Chitakunye 3 June 2021 [4]
George Chiweshe 3 June 2021 [4]
Samuel Kudya 3 June 2021 [4]
Joseph Musakwa 3 June 2021 [4]
Hlekani Mwayera 3 June 2021 [4]

Notable cases

Devagi Rattigan and Others v. Chief Immigration Officer and Others (June 1994)

Devagi Rattigan and Others v. Chief Immigration Officer and Others was a case centered upon whether an immigration law that refused permanent residence to alien husbands of female Zimbabwean citizens violated those particular citizens' right to the freedom of movement in Zimbabwe's Constitution. [5] The three applicants were all female legal citizens of Zimbabwe, yet each of them were married to men who were not legal citizens of Zimbabwe. [6] The three husbands had previously been denied permanent residence in Zimbabwe due to the fact that they did not have any skills that the country was in need of. [6]

The reasoning of the Chief Immigration Officer was that although the marriages may have been genuine, government policy stated that the principal applicant for a permanent residence should be the husband, unless the wife was deemed a high qualified professional. [6] Further, a residence permit could only be given to foreign males if they possess a scarce skill and met the threshold for their finances. [6]

The applicants made the argument that the refusal of permanent residence violated the freedom of movement clause in Section 22(1) of the Zimbabwe Constitution. [5] This clause suggests that the freedom of movement includes: "The right to move freely throughout Zimbabwe, the right to reside in any part of Zimbabwe, the right to enter and leave Zimbabwe and immunity from expulsion from Zimbabwe." [6] The plaintiffs also argued that the law indirectly put restraints on gender, as denying their husband's permanent residence in Zimbabwe simultaneously denied a women's right to establish their residence. [5]

The Supreme Court of Zimbabwe made a groundbreaking decision in 1995 by ruling that a foreign husband should have identical rights of residence as a foreign wife. [7] As a direct result of this ruling, the Zimbabwean government added the 14th amendment to the constitution, which effectively got rid of all rights to citizenship based on marriage, as well as removing gender discrimination. [7] This decision has been cited and reinforced in many cases since, including Salem v. Chief Immigration Officer and Others. [5]

Veneria Magaya v. Nakayi Shonhiwa Magaya (May 1999)

Magaya v. Magaya is known to be one of the cases that has had the most far-reaching impacts on the rights of African women. [8] This case centered upon an African male dying intestate, and the question of which of his immediate children might gain inheritance. [8] Shonhiwa Magaya was survived by four children, only one of whom was female, as well as two polygamous wives. [9] A community court initially ruled in favor of the eldest female daughter, naming her heir to the estate. [10] Magaya's second son, Nakayi, challenged this ruling, and after another hearing, was proclaimed the heir to the estate on grounds of customary law, kicking his sister off the Harare property. [9] The daughter, Venia, quickly appealed to the Zimbabwean Supreme Court, challenging the appointment. [8] [10]

Upon further appeal, the Supreme Court upheld the original decision, reasoning that under customary succession laws, males were the dominant heirs. [10] The court also had to address whether of not this discriminatory customary law principle should be deemed unconstitutional. [8] Section 23 of the Zimbabwean Constitution protects citizens from discrimination on grounds of "race, tribe, place of origin, political opinions, colour or creed," yet it does not make any mention of outlawing discrimination based on sex. [8] This particular section excludes protection from these respective matters: "adoption, marriage, divorce, burial, devolution of property on death or other matters of personal law." [8] Although the court did make a statement acknowledging the importance of gender advancement, it argued that fundamental customary laws are the cornerstone of African society and tradition, and are therefore hard to be thrown out. [10] Further, the court made the argument that issues in this subject area should be assigned to legislators, not the courts. [10]

Critics of this decision have said that it should be deemed invalid under both international law and Zimbabwe constitutional law. [11] Many critics of Zimbabwean cultural practices suggest that even if the Supreme Court had taken human rights into consideration, the same decision would most likely have been reached. [11] The law in Zimbabwe at this time so distinctly sanctions discrimination based on gender that the case was inevitably going to be decided the way it was. [11] This case still remains important and remains in question throughout Southern Africa, as it has become a mobilization stimulus among groups who say it has violated human rights as well as Zimbabwe's Constitution. [9] [11]

Chavunduka v. Minister of Home Affairs (March 2000)

Chavunduka v. Minister of Home Affairs is a case that regarded the publishing of what was deemed by the defendant to be "false news." [12] This case initially came into the public realm when the senior journalist, Raymond Choto, and editor, Mark Chavunduka, of a Zimbabwean newspaper entitled The Standard were taken into custody and arrested for after they published an article that discussed a failed coup d'etat entitled "Senior Army Officers Arrested". [13] The general claim of this article was that the coup was caused by discontent with the government's mismanagement of the economy as well as anger over Zimbabwe's involvement in a war raging in the Democratic Republic of the Congo.

When arrested, the two journalists from The Standard were charged with publishing a "false statement likely to cause fear, alarm or despondency" under section 50(2)(a) of the Law and Order Act. [13] After being released on bail by the Magistrates Court, the two men brought the case to the Supreme Court of Zimbabwe, claiming that their rights to the freedom of expression were being violated under section 18 of the 1980 Zimbabwean Constitution. [13] Ultimately, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, making the assertion that publishing "false news" was too broad and vague. [12] The court pointed out that: "Almost anything that is newsworthy is likely to cause, to some degree at least, in a section of the public or a single person, one or other of these subjective emotions." [12] Chief Justice Anthony Gubbay deliveredc the majority judgement of the full bench of justices.

This case remains important because of the somewhat binding precedent it set in the realm of protecting free speech. [13] Despite this ruling, the government of Zimbabwe would enact Section 80 of the AIPPA just two years later. [14] The regime of Robert Mugabe passed this law which prohibited journalists from publishing false information that is said to threaten the interests of the state. [14] Within a few months of this statue being enacted, it was used against many journalists, including Andrew Meldrum. [14]

See also

Related Research Articles

Civil liberties are guarantees and freedoms that governments commit not to abridge, either by constitution, legislation, or judicial interpretation, without due process. Though the scope of the term differs between countries, civil liberties may include the freedom of conscience, freedom of press, freedom of religion, freedom of expression, freedom of assembly, the right to security and liberty, freedom of speech, the right to privacy, the right to equal treatment under the law and due process, the right to a fair trial, and the right to life. Other civil liberties include the right to own property, the right to defend oneself, and the right to bodily integrity. Within the distinctions between civil liberties and other types of liberty, distinctions exist between positive liberty/positive rights and negative liberty/negative rights.

The Equal Protection Clause is part of the first section of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. The clause, which took effect in 1868, provides "nor shall any State ... deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." It mandates that individuals in similar situations be treated equally by the law.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Human rights in Uganda</span> Explaining Quality of Human Rights in The Country of Uganda

Human rights in Uganda have trended for the past decades towards increasing harassment of the opposition, cracking down on NGOs which work on election and term limits, corruption, land rights, environmental issues, womens, children and gay rights. In 2012, the Relief Web sponsored Humanitarian Profile – 2012 said Uganda made considerable developments Since at least 2013 the Freedom in the World report by Freedom House has identified Uganda as a country considered to be "Not Free".There are several areas of concern when it comes to human rights in Uganda, and the "Not Free" classification is due to both low political rights and civil liberties rankings.

Section 377 of the British colonial penal code criminalized all sexual acts "against the order of nature". The law was used to prosecute people engaging in oral and anal sex along with homosexual activity. As per Supreme Court Judgement since 2018 Indian Penal Code Section 377 is used for Convictions of non consensual sexual activities among homosexuals with a minimum of ten years imprisonment extended to life imprisonment. It has been used to criminalize third gender people, such as the apwint in Myanmar. In 2018, British Prime Minister Theresa May acknowledged how the legacies of British colonial anti-sodomy laws continue to persist today in the form of discrimination, violence, and death.

Fundamental rights are a group of rights that have been recognized by a high degree of protection from encroachment. These rights are specifically identified in a constitution, or have been found under due process of law. The United Nations' Sustainable Development Goal 16, established in 2015, underscores the link between promoting human rights and sustaining peace.

Section 6 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is the section of the Canadian Constitution that protects the mobility rights of Canadian citizens, and to a lesser extent that of permanent residents. By mobility rights, the section refers to the individual practice of entering and exiting Canada, and moving within its boundaries. The section is subject to the section 1 Oakes test, but cannot be nullified by the notwithstanding clause.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Judiciary of Ghana</span> Branch of government

The Judiciary of Ghana comprises the Superior Courts of Judicature, established under the 1992 Constitution, and the Inferior Courts, established by Parliament. The hierarchy of courts derives largely from British juridical forms. The courts have jurisdiction over all civil and criminal matters.

Nevada Department of Human Resources v. Hibbs, 538 U.S. 721 (2003), was a United States Supreme Court case which held that the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993 was "narrowly targeted" at "sex-based overgeneralization" and was thus a "valid exercise of [congressional] power under Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment."

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Human rights in Canada</span>

Human rights in Canada have come under increasing public attention and legal protection since World War II. Prior to that time, there were few legal protections for human rights. The protections which did exist focused on specific issues, rather than taking a general approach to human rights.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">LGBT rights in Belize</span>

Lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) persons in Belize face legal challenges not experienced by non-LGBT citizens, although attitudes have been changing in recent years. Same-sex sexual activity was decriminalized in Belize in 2016, when the Supreme Court declared Belize's anti-sodomy law unconstitutional. Belize's constitution prohibits discrimination on the basis of sex, which Belizean courts have interpreted to include sexual orientation.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Constitution of Ghana</span> Supreme Law of Ghana

The Constitution of Ghana is the supreme law of the Republic of Ghana. It was approved on 28 April 1992 through a national referendum after 92% support. It defines the fundamental political principles, establishing the structure, procedures, powers and duties of the government, structure of the judiciary and legislature, and spells out the fundamental rights and duties of citizens. It is made up of 26 chapters, not including the preamble.

South African customary law refers to a usually uncodified legal system developed and practised by the indigenous communities of South Africa. Customary law has been defined as

an established system of immemorial rules evolved from the way of life and natural wants of the people, the general context of which was a matter of common knowledge, coupled with precedents applying to special cases, which were retained in the memories of the chief and his councilors, their sons and their sons' sons until forgotten, or until they became part of the immemorial rules.

<i>National Coalition for Gay and Lesbian Equality v Minister of Home Affairs</i> South African legal case

National Coalition for Gay and Lesbian Equality and Others v Minister of Home Affairs and Others, [1999] ZACC 17, is a 1999 decision of the Constitutional Court of South Africa which extended to same-sex partners the same benefits granted to spouses in the issuing of immigration permits. It was the first Constitutional Court case to deal with the recognition of same-sex partnerships, and also the first case in which a South African court adopted the remedy of "reading in" to correct an unconstitutional law. The case is of particular importance in the areas of civil procedure, immigration, and constitutional law and litigation.

Attorney General of Botswana v. Unity Dow was a landmark decision of Botswana's Court of Appeal. The case upheld the decision brought to the High Court of Botswana, by the lawyer, Unity Dow, who would go on to become a judge on the High Court and a government minister. It declared provisions of the 1984 Citizenship Act, which barred children from receiving nationality from their mothers, to be unconstitutional. It resulted in the passage of the 1995 Citizenship Act of Botswana, which eliminated gender disparities in the law. The case sparked women to press for changes to nationality laws across Africa.

Tuvalu is a small island nation in the South Pacific, located North of Fiji and North West of Samoa. The population at the 2012 census was 10,837. Tuvalu has a written constitution which includes a statement of rights influenced by the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the European Convention on Human Rights. While most human rights in Tuvalu are respected, areas of concern include women’s rights and freedom of belief, as well as diminishing access to human rights in the face of global warming. The latter has played a major role in the implementation of human rights actions in Tuvalu given its geographical vulnerability and scarce resources.

Section Nine of the Constitution of South Africa guarantees equality before the law and freedom from discrimination to the people of South Africa. This equality right is the first right listed in the Bill of Rights. It prohibits both discrimination by the government and discrimination by private persons; however, it also allows for affirmative action to be taken to redress past unfair discrimination.

<i>Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India</i> Indian LGBT Rights Case Law

Navtej Singh Johar &Ors. v. Union of India thr. Secretary Ministry of Law and Justice (2018) is a landmark decision of the Supreme Court of India that decriminalised all consensual sex among adults, including homosexual sex.

Same-sex unions are currently not performed in Namibia. The Supreme Court ruled 4–1 on 16 May 2023 that same-sex marriages concluded outside of Namibia should be recognised for residency purposes. A bill seeking to overturn the ruling is currently pending in the Parliament of Namibia.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Stella Madzimbamuto</span> African nurse, Zimbabwean nationalist, civil rights and womens rights activist

Stella Madzimbamuto was a South African-born Zimbabwean nurse and plaintiff in the landmark legal case of Madzimbamuto v Lardner-Burke. Born as Stella Nkolombe in District Six of Cape Town in 1930, she trained as a nurse at South Africa's first hospital to treat black Africans, earning a general nursing and a midwifery certification. After working for three years at Ladysmith Provincial Hospital, she married a Southern Rhodesian and relocated. From 1956 to 1959, she worked as a general nurse at the Harare Central Hospital. In 1959, her husband, Daniel Madzimbamuto, was detained as a political prisoner. He would remain in detention until 1974, while she financially supported the family.

Fiallo v. Bell, 430 U.S. 787 (1977), was a U.S. Supreme Court case that challenged the constitutionality of Sections 101(b)(1)(D) and 101(b)(2) of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952. The Sections gave immigration preference to children or parents of either existing U.S. citizens or of noncitizens residing under lawful permanent resident status. But, as the Court wrote, the statute defined “child” narrowly: “an unmarried person under 21 years of age who is a legitimate or legitimated child, a stepchild, an adopted child, or an illegitimate child seeking preference by virtue of his relationship with his mother”.

References

  1. Lawson, Gary; Seidman, Guy (2001). "When Did the Constitution Become Law?". Notre Dame Law Review. 77: 1–37.
  2. "Mnangagwa Appoints Supreme Court Judges". Pindula News. 11 May 2018. Retrieved 16 May 2018.
  3. 1 2 Munyoro, Fidelis (27 June 2019). "UPDATED: Hungwe, Mathonsi land Supreme Court posts". The Herald. Retrieved 16 January 2020.
  4. 1 2 3 4 5 6 Mabika, Columbus (4 June 2021). "6 Supreme Court Judges Sworn in". The Herald. Retrieved 27 December 2022.
  5. 1 2 3 4 "Rattigan and Others v. Chief Immigration Officer and Others". United For Reproductive Rights.
  6. 1 2 3 4 5 Coldham, Simon. "Right to Reside in Zimbabwe". Journal of African Law. 38 via JSTOR.
  7. 1 2 Manby, Bronwen (2015). Citizenship and Statelessness in Africa: The Law and Politics of Belonging. Wolf Legal Publishers.
  8. 1 2 3 4 5 6 Coldham, Simon (1999). "The Status of Women in Zimbabwe: Veneria Magaya v. Nakayi Shonhiwa Magaya". Journal of African Law. 43: 4. doi:10.1017/S0021855300011384. S2CID   143626556 via JSTOR.
  9. 1 2 3 David, Bigge (2000). "Conflict in the Zimbabwean Courts: Women's Rights and Indigenous Self-Determination in Magaya v. Magaya". Harvard Human Rights Journal.
  10. 1 2 3 4 5 Ndulo, Muna (2011). "African Customary Law, Customs, and Women's Rights". Indiana Journal of Legal Studies. 18: 87. doi:10.2979/indjglolegstu.18.1.87. S2CID   154081067.
  11. 1 2 3 4 Knobelsdorf, V. (2006). Zimbabwe's magaya decision revisited: Women's rights and land succession in the international context. Columbia Journal of Gender and Law, 15(3), 749-798.
  12. 1 2 3 "Freedom of Expression: Litigating Cases of Limitations to the Exercise of Freedom of Speech and Opinion". Southern Africa Litigation Centre Manual Series.
  13. 1 2 3 4 "Chavunduka v. Minister of Home Affairs". Global Freedom of Expression - Columbia University.
  14. 1 2 3 19, Article. Zimbabwe: Human Rights in Crisis - Shadow Report African Commission on Human and Peoples' Rights. Numerous African Human Rights Organizations, Zimbabwe: Human Rights in Crisis - Shadow Report African Commission on Human and Peoples' Rights.