Zimpapers Logo

compelling married women to revoke their maiden names as a pre-requisite for obtaining birth certificates for their children.
Mr Lawman Chimuriwo, a lawyer with Goneso, Jessie Majome and Company and his wife Ms Cynthia Aufi yesterday jointly filed the challenge at the Supreme Court after their one-month-old son, Jeremiah was denied a birth certificate by the RG’s Gweru office.
The couple, married under the Marriages Act Chapter 5:11, argues that the policy is not supported by any law and that its son should not be deprived of his right to identity in Zimbabwe.
The parents argue that their son is being rendered stateless, a development that cannot be countenanced in terms of municipal or international law.
It is their argument that the change of the mother’s name was not an obligation at law although it was her entitlement as a legally married woman.
The son was born on June 4 this year in Gweru.
The mother – armed with her identity particulars and the child’s birth record – went to the Registrar-General’s Office to obtain the minor’s birth certificate. The officials refused to help her, ordering her to first relinquish her maiden name before obtaining the birth certificate.
The officials told her they were following a directive by the RG compelling all women married under Chapter 5:11 of the Marriages Act to revoke their maiden names.
Advocate Thabani Mpofu prepared the Constitutional application and the RG’s Office was given 10 working days to file its response. Mr Chimuriwo and Ms Aufi deposed separate affidavits advancing their concerns.
Mr Chimuriwo argued that the RG had no powers to withhold his son’s identity over a policy that has no legal support.
“Respondents (RG and the Gweru office) do not have the equitable jurisdiction to withhold the minor child’s identity on the basis of a policy position that enjoys not the support of the law,” said Mr Chimuriwo.
He added that the denial of a birth certificate would also translate to the denial of other rights such as free movement. Mr Chimuriwo argues that such deprivation constituted inhuman treatment to the child.
“Every human being is entitled to a name recognised and accepted as such under the formal state framework. The refusal to formalise the fact of the name is inconsistent with the child’s humanity. Put differently, such refusal constitutes inhuman treatment and is in contravention of section 15 ( 1) of the Constitution of Zimbabwe.
“This is for the simple reason that the idea of a name is inseparable from the idea of humanity. I have not known of a human being who has no name,” he said.
Ms Aufi, the mother of the child, says she does not believe that any of the respondents has the right to require that she renounce her name as “a quid – pro – quo for the registration of my child’s birth”.
“Registration of birth is not a commodity that can be acquired upon parting with consideration. My own husband has not required that I renounce my name.
“As a matter of fact I am not willing to,” she said.