Farai Dzvova v Minister of Education Sports and Culture and Others

The applicant was the father of a 6-year-old child, Farai Benjamin Dzvova, who was enrolled in Grade 0 at Ruvheneko Primary School in March 2005. The applicant and his family were Rastafarians who took religious vows including not cutting their hair (the Nazarene vow based on Numbers 6:1-6 of the Bible). The child had dreadlocks in accordance with their religious beliefs. In January 2006, a few weeks into the school term, the child's father was called to discuss the child's hair with school officials. The child was detained and separated from other children. On 27 January 2006, the school headmaster sent a letter demanding that the child's hair be cut short or the child would be withdrawn or transferred from the school, citing a school rule requiring all pupils to have "short brush hair regardless of sex, age, religion or race." The applicant obtained a provisional order from the High Court compelling the school to admit the child and the matter was referred to the Supreme Court to determine whether the exclusion violated section 19 of the Constitution.

• Whether Rastafarianism is a religion entitled to constitutional protection under section 19(1) of the Constitution
• Whether the school rules requiring short hair were made under the authority of a law as contemplated in section 19(5) of the Constitution
• Whether the exclusion of the child from school on the basis of his hairstyle violated his constitutional right to freedom of religion under section 19(1)
• Whether the headmaster had the authority to make rules that derogate from constitutional rights

The Court made the following order: (a) The respondents were compelled to allow the minor child to enter the school for purposes of education; (b) The respondents were interdicted from negatively interfering with the child's education, including separating him from classmates, detaining him in solitary, or discriminating against him on the basis of his hairstyle or religious beliefs; (c) It was declared that expulsion of a Rastafarian from school on the basis of his expression of religious belief through his hairstyle is a contravention of sections 19 and 23 of the Constitution of Zimbabwe; (d) The respondents were ordered to pay the costs of the application.

The binding legal principles established are: (1) Rastafarianism is a religion entitled to constitutional protection under section 19(1) of the Constitution; (2) School rules that infringe constitutional rights must be made under the authority of a law as required by section 19(5) of the Constitution; (3) A school headmaster has no authority under the Education Act or regulations to make rules that derogate from pupils' constitutional rights to freedom of religion; (4) The power to make regulations under section 69 of the Education Act is vested in the Minister and cannot be exercised by a headmaster without proper delegation; (5) Expulsion or exclusion of a Rastafarian child from school on the basis of his hairstyle (as a manifestation of religious belief) contravenes sections 19 and 23 of the Constitution; (6) Keeping dreadlocks in accordance with religious beliefs is not an act of indiscipline or misconduct but a manifestation of religion protected by the Constitution.

The Court made observations on the importance of respecting religious beliefs, citing Christian Education South Africa v Minister of Education 2000 (4) SA 757 (CC) that "religion provides support and nurture and a framework for individual and social stability and growth. Religious belief has the capacity to awake concepts of self-worth and human dignity which form the cornerstone of human rights." The Court also referred to English authority stating that "every shade of religious belief, if genuinely held, is entitled to due consideration" and emphasized the importance of respecting one's genuine religious beliefs. The Court noted that genuine Rastafarian adherents let their hair grow naturally into locks rather than twisting it artificially for fashion purposes.

This case is significant as it establishes important constitutional protections for freedom of religion in Zimbabwe's educational context. It confirms that Rastafarianism is a religion entitled to constitutional protection under section 19(1). It clarifies the limits of school authorities' power to make rules, establishing that headmasters cannot make rules that derogate from constitutional rights without proper legislative authority. The judgment reinforces that every child's right to education under section 4 of the Education Act cannot be infringed on religious grounds. It provides important guidance on the manifestation of religious beliefs through appearance and the need for educational institutions to respect religious diversity. The case demonstrates the primacy of constitutional rights over administrative school rules.