Judgment No. CCZ 7/16 22 Const. Application No. CCZ 17/15 constitutes a prima facie infringement of their religious beliefs. The practice and observance of their faith demands that they exclude themselves from any place of worship that contains any religious symbol, including the crucifix. It also demands that they abstain from any rite or ritual that involves the admixture of any religion other than their own. By being compelled to enter the School chapel and attend the predominantly Anglican services conducted therein, they are being called upon to renounce, albeit temporarily, certain fundamental tenets of their faith that are designed to enhance their peculiar sense of religious and cultural identity as well as their dignity as self-professed Jehovah’s Witnesses. They can only be required to renounce those tenets if they choose to do so freely and voluntarily or in circumstances that are reasonable and justifiable having regard to the public interest or the rights and freedoms of others. Permissible Limitation of Religious Freedom The critical question for determination in casu is whether or not the compulsion to attend chapel imposed upon the applicants’ daughters is constitutionally permissible in the circumstances under consideration. In terms of s 86(2) of the Constitution, fundamental rights and freedoms may be limited “only in terms of a law of general application and to the extent that the limitation is fair, reasonable, necessary and justifiable in a democratic society”. In this respect, Adv. de Bourbon argues that the contract of admission signed by the applicants is the law envisaged in s 86(2) and that the School is entitled to enforce that contract accordingly. Adv. Mafukidze appears to implicitly accept this proposition by his lengthy written submissions interrogating the contract and the School’s conduct under the criteria set out in s 86(2).