16 In Their Capacity as Human Rights Defenders: Women account of a discrepancy between the surname on her birth certificate and that on her national identity card. She explained that she had changed her surname when she got married and was then told to bring a copy of her marriage certificate, despite this not being a requirement in terms of the Electoral Act. Upon furnishing a copy of the marriage certificate, she was advised that she was out of time, and therefore her nomination papers had been rejected. This conferred an unfair advantage on the male contenders for political office who had not been asked to produce the same documentation. The appeal against the unlawful and discriminatory conduct of ZEC officials in refusing to accept the nomination papers was granted by the Electoral Court that declared that Govo was the duly nominated candidate for the concerned ward in Chikomba. Freedom of expression:- The case of Majome v Zimbabwe Broadcasting Holdings & 3 Ors25 is a constitutional challenge to the provisions of the Broadcasting Services Act, specifically, the sections requiring all members of the public with receivers to be levied a licence fee by the Zimbabwe Broadcasting Corporation (ZBC). This case sought to challenge the requirement to pay for a licence while programming and content was politically partisan and not in the public interest, as should be the case with a public broadcaster. The challenge also seeks to assert participation rights more broadly. Jessie Majome challenged the law based on the patently partisan programming of the ZBC which is not in line with constitutional provisions protecting equality before the law (section 56), freedom of association and assembly (section 58), freedom of conscience (section 60) and freedom of expression and freedom of the media (section 61). She also sought to assert her political rights under section 67 of the Constitution. The matter was finally argued on 12 November 2014 before the full bench of the Constitutional Court. Judgment was reserved after hearing from all legal representatives. Right to identity: As a registered voter who wanted to participate in the 2013 elections by casting her vote, Primrose Matambanadzo discovered that her surname had been arbitrarily changed to that of her husband on the voters’ roll. Although she had registered her name as Matambanadzo and had voted using this name since 2005, it had been changed to her husband’s name upon her marriage, without her request, knowledge or consent. She discovered this upon inspecting the voters’ roll on 20 June 2013 before the July 2013 national elections. Upon inquiry, she was advised that it was not certain that she would be able to cast her vote due to this disparity. After filing a court application in the High Court and a number of meetings between lawyers and the Registrar-General’s Office Primrose’s name was changed back to the original surname on the voters’ roll.26 Right to equality: In the case of Dongo v Registrar-General & Anor27 that was supported by the Zimbabwe Women Lawyers’ Association, Margaret Dongo, a married woman and the mother of a minor child Kudakwashe Norman, sought a court order against the Registrar-General’s conduct described below. In January 2006, when Kudakwashe Dongo was still a minor, Margaret, like so many other women in Zimbabwe, approached the Office of the RegistrarGeneral to apply for a passport for her son. She was turned away on the grounds that as the mother of a marital minor child, she could not sign the passport application form authorising 25 Constitutional Court unreported case 67/13. 26 ZLHR issued a letter of demand and drafted a court application that was eventually not finalised as the matter was resolved without the need to go to court. 27 Supreme Court unreported case 6/2010.