12 In Their Capacity as Human Rights Defenders: Women In the second case, authorities at Chitungwiza General Hospital (CGH) in March 2014 refused to release Clara Mucheza for close to a week after she delivered her baby, on the basis that she had failed to settle her medical bills after being admitted at the government-run medical centre. The hospital insisted, without lawful cause, that Mucheza should first settle her medical bill amounting to $546 before being discharged. This action prompted ZLHR lawyers to protest against her illegal detention and demand her immediate release. In a letter delivered to the CGH chief executive officer, lawyers demanded that hospital authorities immediately release Clara as they were arbitrarily and illegally detaining her. Lawyers protested that the detention and prohibition contravened section 49 of the Constitution as the hospital had no authority at law to restrict the personal liberty of Clara for non-payment of medical fees. Further, section 49 of the Constitution guarantees the right to personal liberty and outlaws the imprisonment of citizens merely on the ground of inability to fulfil contractual obligations. Resultantly, CGH authorities relented and released Muchezi before legal proceedings were initiated through the courts. The third case, that of Nyarai Gwaze,16 was similar. In February 2014, Gwaze was detained at HCH for failing to settle her $133 medical bill after she sought medical assistance for an ailment from the medical institution. The hospital authorities had even refused to consider Gwaze’s offer to pay a down payment so as to secure her release. She was released after interventions by ZLHR lawyers threatening legal action. Right to marry and found a family: Sister Berry filed an application in the Constitutional Court of Zimbabwe in the case of Berry & Anor v Chief Immigration Officer & Anor.17 She had been forced to leave Zimbabwe (her country of birth) to join her husband temporarily in South Africa after the Zimbabwean immigration authorities refused her husband, who was an American citizen, entry into the country. Sister Berry’s husband had been declared a prohibited immigrant in June 2014 and he was forced to leave the country. An appeal against this notice that had been filed by the husband had succeeded, and on the strength of the court order the couple returned to Zimbabwe. At the point of entry the husband was denied entry by the immigration officials. Sister Berry was forced to leave the country to join her husband to maintain a married life. As a result, she was temporarily residing in South Africa awaiting the outcome of this application. It was very expensive for the couple to stay in South Africa indefinitely while awaiting the outcome of the court challenge. Immigration developments in South Africa also made it extremely unlikely that the couple would be granted permits for a long-term stay there. The Constitutional Court considered the application on 18 February 2015, and judgment is currently pending. Child marriage is a pervasive problem in Zimbabwe. It is practiced by some religious sects and is also a customary practice, in violation of the Constitution of Zimbabwe. The practice was challenged in the case of Mudzuru & Anor v Minister of Justice & 2 Ors.18 Two women, Loveness Mudzuru and Ruvimbo Tsopodzi, who had been married off when they were minors were requesting the Constitutional Court to declare 18 years’ of age as the minimum age for all marriages in Zimbabwe, in line with the new Constitution. This would strike down 16 In all three cases, letters of demand for the immediate release of the detained mother resulted in their release after a payment plan was agreed upon by the hospital authorities and the mothers. 17 Constitutional Court of Zimbabwe unreported case 53/14. 18 Constitutional Court of Zimbabwe unreported case 79/14.