Jennifer Williams and Others v Co-Ministers of Home Affairs and Others

The applicants, members of Women of Zimbabwe Arise (WOZA), were arrested on 15 April 2010 during a demonstration against poor service delivery by the Zimbabwe Electricity Supply Authority. They were detained at Harare Central Police Station for five nights. Upon arrival, they were ordered to remove their shoes, jackets, and brassieres, which were placed in dirty bags. They were held barefoot in overcrowded cells (16 detainees in a cell meant for 6) with appalling sanitary conditions: overflowing toilets that could only be flushed from outside by police, no running water in cells, no toilet paper, no privacy when using toilets, no bathing facilities, insufficient blankets (3 for 16 people), and no food or drinking water provided by police. The cells had poor lighting and ventilation, with urine flowing on the floors. The Court conducted an inspection of the cells which largely confirmed the applicants' allegations.

• Whether the conditions of detention constituted inhuman and degrading treatment in violation of section 15 of the Constitution
• Whether requiring female detainees to remove their brassieres constituted inhuman and degrading treatment
• Whether requiring detainees to remove their shoes and walk barefoot in unsanitary conditions constituted inhuman and degrading treatment
• Whether the failure to provide sanitary provisions for menstruating women constituted discrimination on the basis of sex in violation of section 23 of the Constitution
• Whether requiring women to remove brassieres constituted discrimination on the basis of sex

The Court declared that: (1) the applicants' rights under section 23 (protection from discrimination) had been violated; (2) the applicants' rights under section 15 (protection from inhuman and degrading treatment) had been violated. The Court directed the first and second respondents to take necessary measures to ensure proper conditions at Harare Central Police Station, including: clean flushing toilets with privacy screens, toilet paper and washing facilities, good hygiene standards, clean mattresses and adequate blankets, adequate bathing facilities, access to wholesome drinking water from sources other than toilet taps, and allowing women detainees to keep their undergarments including brassieres and wear suitable footwear. No order as to costs was made.

The binding legal principles established are: (1) Detention conditions that fail to meet elementary norms of human decency, including lack of screened toilets, internal flushing mechanisms, toilet paper, wash basins, adequate bedding, bathing facilities, and wholesome drinking water constitute inhuman and degrading treatment prohibited by section 15 of the Constitution. (2) Brassieres are necessary wearing apparel for women and fall within the protection of section 41 of the Criminal Procedure and Evidence Act, which permits detainees to retain necessary wearing apparel. (3) Requiring female detainees to remove brassieres constitutes both inhuman and degrading treatment under section 15 and sex discrimination under section 23, as such a requirement humiliates women and a blanket policy that ignores women's particular needs based on their biological make-up amounts to discriminatory treatment. (4) Requiring detainees to walk barefoot on floors contaminated with human waste constitutes inhuman and degrading treatment. (5) Treatment can only be justified under section 15(2) if it is reasonably necessary to prevent escape from custody; humiliating treatment that serves no such purpose violates section 15. (6) Under section 24(1), applicants must show violation of their own constitutional rights, not rights of others generally.

The Court noted that the respondents had established a Cabinet committee to look into conditions of police and prison cells and to make recommendations for improvement, though this did not excuse current violations. The Court observed that while the idea of not providing sanitary provisions for menstruating women appears abhorrent, the applicants could not be 'torchbearers for women in general' under section 24(1) - they must show personal violation. The Court commented that any item of clothing can potentially be turned into a weapon or instrument for self-harm, implying that security concerns cannot justify blanket removal of all clothing items. The Court indicated that claims for damages arising from seizure of personal property like cell phones should be pursued in the appropriate forum rather than constitutional litigation. The judges noted that great effort had been made to clean the corridors and stairs before the inspection, with heavy smell of floor polish and slippery floors, suggesting the respondents had attempted to present the facility in the best possible light.

This case is significant in Zimbabwean constitutional jurisprudence as it establishes important precedents regarding the minimum standards of decency required in police detention facilities. It applies and extends the principles from Nancy Kachingwe v Minister of Home Affairs regarding inhuman and degrading treatment. The judgment is particularly significant for recognizing gender-specific needs in detention, holding that policies must account for biological and practical differences between men and women to avoid discrimination. It affirms that human dignity must be maintained even in detention, and that security concerns cannot justify unnecessary humiliation. The case provides concrete guidance on what constitutes inhuman and degrading treatment under section 15 of the Constitution, and establishes that gender-neutral policies that fail to account for women's particular needs may constitute sex discrimination under section 23. The Court's willingness to conduct inspections and issue detailed structural interdicts demonstrates judicial activism in enforcing constitutional rights.