The appellant and another children's and women's rights advocate approached the High Court in the public interest, challenging the constitutional validity of sections of the Criminal Law (Reform and Codification) Act [Chapter 9:23] ("the Code"). The Code defined a "young person" as a boy or girl under the age of sixteen years and criminalized extra-marital sexual intercourse and indecent acts with young persons. Both applicants, now adults, had been child brides, and the second applicant was a mother of two by age nineteen. They argued that the Code's definition was inconsistent with the Constitution's definition of a "child" as any boy or girl under eighteen years, and that the law failed to protect children aged sixteen to eighteen from sexual exploitation. The High Court dismissed the application with costs on 20 January 2020. The appellant appealed to the Constitutional Court.
The appeal was allowed with no order as to costs. The High Court judgment was set aside and substituted with an order declaring sections 61 and 70 of the Criminal Law (Reform and Codification) Act [Chapter 9:23] unconstitutional to the extent that they fail to afford protection to children between sixteen and eighteen years and to all children in child marriages, in violation of section 81(1)(e) of the Constitution. The respondents were given twelve months from the date of the order to align the impugned law with the Constitution.
The binding legal principles established are: (1) Section 81(1)(e) of the Constitution requires that every child under eighteen years must be protected from sexual exploitation, without exception; (2) A law that provides protection to only some children (those under sixteen) while completely denying protection to others (those aged sixteen to eighteen) is inconsistent with the constitutional mandate and infringes the rights of the excluded group; (3) The test for determining whether an enactment infringes a fundamental freedom is to examine its effect, not its object or subject matter; (4) When conducting constitutional review, courts must first interpret the relevant constitutional provisions to establish the framework against which the impugned law will be measured; (5) A complete negation or obliteration of a constitutional right (as opposed to a limitation) cannot be justified as a reasonable and necessary limitation in a democratic society under section 86(2) of the Constitution; (6) The Constitution's definition of "child" as any boy or girl under eighteen years is determinative for all other laws and practices in the jurisdiction.
The Court made several non-binding observations: (1) While all children must be protected from sexual exploitation, the levels of protection may decrease with age to recognize that child development is evolutionary and adolescents should be able to explore and understand their bodies; (2) There is need for a comprehensive Children's Act that recognizes children's rights as set out in the Constitution; (3) There is confusion around the age of consent and children's rights to healthcare services regarding reproductive health - while it is desirable that children stay away from sex until adulthood, children who have sexual relations still have the right to healthcare services; (4) Healthcare providers need to be empowered by law to provide sexual and reproductive health services to children in need without regarding them as too young for such services; (5) The criminal law has historically differentiated children by age for purposes of ascribing criminal intention and defining the gravity of sexual offences; (6) The new minimum marriage age of eighteen creates misalignment with the age of consent, creating both positive effects (potentially delaying sexual activity) and negative effects (children aged sixteen to eighteen may be exploited without perpetrators being required to marry them); (7) Expert evidence may be necessary to strike a proper balance between children's rights to dignity and paternalistic protection from harmful choices due to immaturity.
This judgment is significant in Zimbabwean constitutional jurisprudence as it extends full constitutional protection from sexual exploitation to all children under eighteen, not just those under sixteen. It aligns the criminal law definition of children requiring protection with the constitutional definition. The case demonstrates the proper methodology for constitutional challenges: interpretation of constitutional provisions first, followed by examination of the impugned law's effect (not its object), and application of the presumption of constitutional validity. The judgment also reinforces that where a law completely denies a constitutional right to a class of persons (rather than merely limiting it), justification under limitation clauses is virtually impossible. It highlights the need for Zimbabwe to develop comprehensive children's legislation that recognizes the evolutionary development of children while providing graduated protection appropriate to different age groups. The decision also addresses the intersection between child marriage laws (following Mudzuru) and age of consent laws, creating urgency for legislative reform to protect vulnerable children aged sixteen to eighteen.