v Meaker 1998 (8) BCLR 1038. Failure to provide the relevant data and statistics justifying the limitations is fatal. See for instance Philips v Director of Public Prosecution 2003 (3) SA 43; Moiese v Greater Germiston Transitional Local Council2001 (4) SA 491 (CC). THE MYTH OF THE RESPONDENTS' DEFENCE 96. The Respondents' opposing affidavit has not provided any data or evidence to justify the retention of the law. Instead what the government simply sought to do is to justify infraction on old fashioned stereotype sexist arguments. 97. Paragraph 11 of the opposing affidavit makes this heretical point:, "It is true that the Marriage Act, [Chapter 5:11] differentiates between the minimum age of marriage for boys and girls, and that eh Customary Marriage Act, [Chapter 5: 11] does not specify any minimum age for either boys or girls. I, however, unconstitutional about deny that that there state of affairs. rs anything The differentiation is simply that, and is necessitated solely by the sexual difference itself and the implications therefore for married life. As far as I am aware the differentiation arises from biological and psychological maturity levels for boys and girls." 98. It is absolutely absurd to suggest that there are different biological and psychological maturity levels for boys and girls. This is not true and is a common stereotype. Page 31 of 46 Applicant's Heads of Argument in the matter between: Love ness Mudzuru & Another v Minister of Justice Legal & Parliamentary Affairs & 2 Others Case Number CCZ 79/2014 Prepared by Tendai Biri Law