“In this matter before me, it is clear that the girl Sarah Kalua was really in ‘love’ with the Appellant who was 24 years at the time. During trial she did all she could to save her so called husband but to no avail. She admitted that the Appellant was having sexual intercourse with her because he considered her as his second wife. Sarah did not accuse the Appellant of forcing her to have sexual intercourse. She allowed him to enter her body voluntarily. The medical report showed no injuries inside the walls of her vagina. Unfortunately for both ‘lovers’, Sarah was under the age of 16 years and therefore an offence was committed. (Our emphasis)”. Similarly, in the case of Kamowa v The Republic cited above, the Malawian High Court held that consent is a mitigating factor in sentencing where there is evidence of consent sexual relationship. In that case the court ruled that: “It is imperative for the prosecution to prove that […] the girl was under the age of sixteen years. It appears that it is irrelevant whether the offender knew of the age of the girl or not. When you go out with any girl you take a risk that the girl will turn out to be sixteen. This is a departure from the case of Maloza Manda v The State Criminal Appeal Case No. 21 of 2010 Mzuzu District Registry which says that the prosecution has also to prove that the accused person had knowledge or ought to have known that the girl was under sixteen. Whether one knew or failed to make an effort to know the age of the girl is not an important ingredient of the offence. However, under the proviso, a defence is created if circumstances are shown by the offender to the satisfaction of the court that the offender had reasonable cause to believe and did believe that the girl was above the age of sixteen. This will only arise after the prosecution has laid down its case or the two important ingredients of the offence stated above.” Taken within this context, a defence that the young person reasonably appeared to be above 16 years of age, and the accused in fact believed that to be the case, does not necessarily detract from this general approach of the courts as well as constitutional protections of children. Finally, the penal law on having sexual intercourse or performing an indecent act with a young person provides protection to a child, thereby creating a right to such protection for the child. In terms of the Zimbabwean constitutional architecture, limitations of rights can only be in terms of the limitations clause in the Constitution. Section 86 of the Constitution provides in relevant part as follows: “86. Limitation of rights and freedoms […] 2. The fundamental rights and freedoms set out in this Chapter 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 based on openness, justice, human dignity, equality and freedom, taking into account all relevant factors, including – a. the nature of the right or freedom concerned; b. the purpose of the limitation, in particular whether it is necessary in the interests of defence, public safety, public order, public morality, public health, regional or town planning or the general public interest; 30