Zimbabwe Rule of Law Journal |101 PWDs on access to public premises, services and amenities and employment,32 this legislation has two serious shortcomings which hamper its objectives. First, the name of the Act “Disabled Persons” is depreciatory and is likely to do more harm to PWDs. This is a clear representation of the medical model of disability which considers PWDs as being sick and in need of medical assistance. Unlike the social model of disability, the medical model does not recognise societal and environmental barriers as disabling factors. Mandipa writes that the DPA “reflects a medical and diagnostic approach to disability which ignores the imperfections and deficiencies of the surrounding society”.33 Secondly, unlike Article 27 of the CRPD which unambiguously provides for the right to work for PWDs, the DPA does not expressly provide for the right to work of a person with disabilities, but simply prohibits discrimination in employment34 and, as result, as noted by Tsitsi Choruma, “most people with disabilities in Zimbabwe are not accorded the same access to job opportunities as their able-bodied counterparts”.35 However, the court through the declaratory Order recognized that the discriminative nature of the recruitment process by ZIMSTAT unfairly excluded visually impaired persons and bridged the gap between formal and substantive equality. The South Africa jurisprudence is informative in achieving substantive equality and securing human dignity for all. In Harksen v. Lane NO and Others,36 the Court articulated the test for unfair discrimination. According to the decision, three questions are essential: Whether there is a rational and legitimate ground for the policy, law or practice that differentiates between people or groups of people such as the 32 [Chapter 17: 01] 33 Esau Mandipa “Disabled Persons Act defective”, The Standard, January 22, 2012. 34 Proceed Manatsa op cit note 27 pp. 25-34 at 28. 35 Tsitsi Choruma ‘The Forgotten tribe’ persons with disabilities in Zimbabwe 2007, Progression Report, p 17. 36 Harksen v. Lane NO and Others 1998 (1) SA 300 (Constitutional Court) para 53.