Judgment No. CCZ 7/16 9 Const. Application No. CCZ 17/15 Right to Education The gist of the appellants’ argument, as I understand it, is that the Headmistress of the School, through her ultimatum to attend chapel, effectively expelled their daughters from the School. In so doing, she violated their right to education in terms of s 75 of the Constitution, as read with s 4 of the Education Act. In this respect, Adv. Mafukidze relies in particular on s 4(2) of the Act which prohibits discrimination on the grounds of, inter alia, race, tribe, creed or gender, with regard to the admission of any child to any school. He argues that this provision extends to contracts of admission and, by necessary implication, to the discriminatory imposition of onerous conditions after admission. Admission in this sense is not limited to entry into the school but also includes the right to remain in the school for the duration of one’s studies. The gravity of such discriminatory conduct is demonstrated by the fact that it is criminalised by s 4(4) of the Act. In the instant case, the applicants’ daughters, as adherents of the Jehovah’s Witness faith, are discriminated against by having to attend the observance of a contrary faith that they do not adhere to, unlike the majority of the girls at the School who belong to the Anglican faith. This prohibition against discrimination is reinforced by s 75(2) of the Constitution which prohibits independent educational institutions from practising such discrimination. In my view, this argument is fundamentally flawed in relation to the scope of section 4 of the Act and the notion of discrimination prohibited by that section. Firstly, what s 4(2) prohibits is the refusal of or discrimination against any child in regard to his