Judgment No. CCZ 7/16 26 Const. Application No. CCZ 17/15 In any event, there is nothing in the opposing papers to show that the objective of collegiality that the Headmistress wishes to inculcate in the pupils was not previously attained. There is no evidence that the exemption from chapel attendance that was previously granted has negatively impacted on the collegiality or discipline of the applicant’s daughters or the other pupils. Nor is there anything to indicate that compulsory collective chapel attendance is the most appropriate vehicle to entrench collegiality. This objective might be better achieved through regular attendance at social or sporting events or when all the pupils are gathered together in the dining hall, as happens at the School during the daily lunch break. As Adv. Mafukidze correctly submits, coercion as opposed to persuasion does not necessarily build collegiality. On the contrary, to forcibly conjoin persons of different faiths might serve to undermine the dignity of all concerned, the minority as well as the majority. As I have already noted, freedom of conscience and human dignity are inseparably linked and the denial of the former entails the denial of the latter. As against the foregoing, it is not in dispute that the applicants were fully aware from the time that they signed the admission forms that their daughters had been accepted as pupils on the following terms and conditions: that the School’s rules and regulations, as amended from time to time, would be binding and had to be observed; that the School’s founding Christian principles would entail adherence to its rules on chapel attendance; that no exemption from the curriculum would be considered on religious grounds; and that any latitude concerning chapel attendance was at the sole discretion of