Litigants and Litigators: Women HRDs 17 the Registrar-General to issue the passport as she was not the guardian of the child. The common law in Zimbabwe relating to guardianship, as confirmed by the Guardianship of Minors Act, states that the father of a marital child is the legal guardian and his consent must always be sought for all juristic acts performed on behalf of the child. Through her lawyers, Dongo brought the matter before the Supreme Court to challenge whether section 3 of the Guardianship of Minors Act, in its effect and implementation concerning the rights of guardianship of a minor child, is discriminatory against women and in violation of the provisions of section 23(1) of the old Constitution which prohibits discrimination on the grounds of sex, gender and marital status, among others. Another issue for determination was whether the common law relating to the guardianship of marital children discriminates against women and violates the provisions of section 23 of the old Constitution. Dongo also wanted the court to decide whether African customary law relating to the guardianship of children born in a customary law union discriminates against women and violates the provisions of section 23 of the old Constitution. In June 2010 the Supreme Court of Zimbabwe handed down its judgment and highlighted that the refusal by the Registrar-General to allow Dongo and other women in her position the capacity to assist their minor children to obtain a passport was premised on the assumption that the acquisition of a passport for a minor child is a juristic act and, therefore, an act of guardianship. It found that under Zimbabwean law, the issuance of a passport is not a juristic act in as far as it does not confer any additional rights on the holder of a passport; It merely facilitates the exercise by its holder of right of freedom of movement which the child, like any other person, was already entitled to in terms of section 22 of the Constitution. The finding that the acquisition of a passport is not a juristic act led to the logical conclusion that the exclusive assistance of the minor child’s guardian is not a legal requirement. On that basis, the Registrar-General was mistaken in refusing Dongo’s application to assist her minor son to apply for a passport and in insisting that only the child’s guardian could assist. Both parents individually can assist a child to obtain a passport. Right to liberty:- In March 2009 Jennifer Williams and another member of WOZA submitted an urgent application to the Supreme Court of Zimbabwe under section 24(1) of the Constitution alleging that their arrest and prosecution was a violation of their constitutional rights. On 26 November 2010, in the case of Williams & Anor v Msipha & 2 Ors, the Supreme Court of Zimbabwe ruled that the prosecution of the two WOZA members under section 37 for their participation in the 16 October 2008 protest was a violation of their fundamental constitutional rights to personal liberty and to protection of the law.28 The court found that the actions of the two applicants and other WOZA members at the gathering on 16 October 2008 were “wholly” protected under the old Constitution of Zimbabwe,29 and that even if proved at trial, the facts of the 16 October 2008 demonstration could never constitute a crime under section 37 of the Criminal Law (Codification and Reform) Act. After the rendering of this ruling, the applicants had a legitimate expectation that they would henceforth be permitted to conduct peaceful demonstrations without hindrance. The two WOZA members had to file a direct application to the Constitutional Court after the magistrate had refused to refer their case to the Constitutional Court ,where they wanted to challenge the legality of the charge they were facing on the grounds it did not constitute an offence. 28 Williams & Anor v Msipha, the Minister of Justice and the Attorney-General Supreme Court unreported case 22/10. 29 As above at p 28.