Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
Zimbabwe
1995 (4) BCLR 533 (ZS); [1996] 1 CHRLD 26
For the Applicant: T Biti, Honey & Blackenberg
For the Attorney General: ET Binali, Civil Division of the Attorney General's Office
The applicant, a Rastifarian, applied for registration as a legal practitioner and was
approved by the Law Society. The High Court, however, declined to permit him to
take the oath of loyalty and of office in view of his dreadlocks hairstyle. It was
unclear from the judgment of the High Court whether the refusal was based on the
failure of the applicant to show that he was a fit and proper person as required
under statute or upon a rule of practice that members of the legal profession must be
formally dressed, tidy and well-groomed. The applicant contended that the High
Court refusal infringed his constitutional rights to (a) freedom of conscience; (b)
freedom of expression; and (c) protection from discriminatory treatment.
In directing the High Court to permit the applicant to take the oaths, it was held that:
1. Rastafarianism had the status of a religion (McNally J expressing
reservations) and, in any event, freedom of conscience was intended to
encompass and protect systems of belief which were not religiously motivated
or centred on a deity.
2. The wearing of dreadlocks was a symbolic expression of the religious beliefs
of the Rastafari and the court should not be concerned with the validity or
attraction of religious beliefs, only with their sincerity.
3. The permitted limitations to freedom of religion contained in the relevant
section were inapplicable in the present case because (a) the rule of practice
had no legal basis as it was not contained in or under the authority of any
law; or alternatively (b) the statutory requirement of being a fit and proper
person alluded to personal qualities, and appearance bore no rational
connection with the object of the statute in maintaining the integrity and
honour of the profession.
4. The applicants right to freedom of religion had been contravened and he
must be allowed to take the requisite oaths.
5. It was unnecessary in view of this conclusion to examine the submissions
relating to freedom of expression and discrimination.